mmm^ 


Religion  OF  Science 


ve9o^ 


mmmm 


// 


tl|e  ICtbrarg  nf 
Prtnrrtntt  SItjwIngtral  g'^mtnarg 

BL  240  .C372"  1896 
Carus,  Paul,  1852-1919. 
The  religion  of  science 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE. 


THE 


RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 


BY 


DR.   PAUL  CARUS 


SECOND  EDITION,  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED 


My  ;people  are  destroyed/or  lack  of  knowledge. 
Because  thou  hast  rejected  knowledge,  I  will  also  reject 
thee  that  thou  shall  be  no  priest  to  jne.     Hosea  4,  6. 
Holdfast  as  a  refuge  to  the  truth.     Buddha. 


CHICAGO 

THE  OPEN  COURT  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

(LONDON:  17  Johnson's  Court,  Fleet  St..  E.C.) 

1896 


copyright  by 

The  Open  Court  Publishing  Co. 

1893. 


PREFACE. 

The  work  of  The  Open  Court  Publishing  Company,  appears 
to  be  of  purely  theoretical  importance  ;  but  it  pursues,  neverthe- 
less, an  eminently  practical  aim,  which,  briefly  expressed,  is  to 
propound,  develop,  and  establish  the  Religion  of  Science. 

The  present  booklet  aims  to  sketch  the  isagogics  of  the  Reli- 
gion of  Science,  intending  to  serve  as  an  introduction  to  it,  to  pre- 
vent misconceptions,  and  to  impart  general  information  concerning 
its  principles  and  scope. 

In  order  to  establish  the  Religion  of  Science  it  is  by  no  means 
necessary  to  abolish  the  old  religions,  but  only  to  purify  them  and 
develop  their  higher  possibilities,  so  that  their  mythologies  shall  be 
changed  into  strictly  scientific  conceptions.  It  is  intended  to  pre- 
serve of  the  old  religions  all  that  is  true  and  good,  but  to  purify 
their  faith  by  rejecting  superstitions  and  irrational  elements,  and 
to  discard,  unrelentingly,  their  errors. 

*  * 

The  churches  of  to-day  still  pursue  a  policy  which  closes  their 
doors  to  those  who  dare  to  think  for  themselves.  Thus,  the  scien- 
tist and  the  philosopher  will  most  likely  shake  their  heads  at  the 
idea  of  broadening  the  established  religions  and  developing  them  into 
the  Religion  of  Science.,  which  will  stand  upon  scientifically  prov- 
able truth,  and  will  base  our  religious  views  upon  that  one  and  omni- 
present revelation  which  is  found  in  nature.  But  the  undertaking 
is  not  quite  as  hopeless  as  it  appears.  The  churches,  and  especially 
the  American  churches,  are  not  as  conservative  and  stationary  as 


iv  PREFACE. 

their  dogmas  pretend  to  be.  Almost  all  our  churches  have,  during  the 
last  two  decades,  grown  immensely  in  depth  and  catholicity.  There 
is  a  very  strong  tendency  among  them  to  get  rid  of  sectarian  nar- 
rowness and  dogmatic  crudities.  The  influence  of  science  is  felt 
in  our  religious  life  everywhere,  and  its  ultimate  aim,  although  we 
are  still  very  far  from  it,  can  but  be  a  rationalising  of  the  religious 
faith  and  a  broadening  of  the  sectarian  creeds  into  one  cosmical 
religion,  which  will  be  the  only  true  and  catholic  faith,  the  religion 
of  truth,  i.  e.,  of  scientific  truth,  the  Religion  of  Science. 


We  must  introduce,  on  the  one  hand,  the  warmth  of  religious 
enthusiasm  into  the  province  of  philosophy  and  science,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  spirit  of  uncompromising  criticism  and  scientific 
research  into  the  domain  of  religious  conviction. 

We  must  learn  to  know  that  Science  is  but  another  name  for 
Revelation. 

The  Religion  of  Science  is  an  appeal  to  all  mankind.  It  ap- 
peals to  all  lovers  of  truth  within  the  churches  and  without. 

Luther  said  somewhere,  "The  worst  idols  in  the  country  are 
the  sacraments  and  the  altar  "  ;  and  Luther's  criticism  is  pertinent 
still.  The  Religion  of  Science  comes  to  protest  against  the  idolatry 
of  our  churches  and  against  their  pagan  spirit  which  alone  brings 
them  into  conflict  with  science. 


The  name,  "Religion  of  Science,"  has  not  been  invented  to 
denote  a  schism,  but  to  proclaim  a  principle  which  opposes  not  the 
faith  of  the  churches,  not  their  moral  spirit,  not  their  Christianity, 
but  their  dogmatism,  their  trust  in  rituals  and  their  paganism. 

The  Religion  of  Science  is  not  intended  to  be  a  new  sect  among 
the  many  other  sects  that  now  exist.  The  Religion  of  Science  is  no 
visible  church  with  a  definite  number  of  members,  having  a  consti- 


PREFACE  V 

tution,  by-laws,  and  a  creed.  The  Religion  of  Science  is  the  invis- 
ible church,  and  its  members  are  all  those  who,  like  ourselves,  be- 
lieve in  the  religion  of  truth,  who  acknowledge  that  truth  has  not 
been  revealed  once  and  once  only,  but  that  we  are  constantly  facing 
the  revelation  of  truth,  and  that  the  scientific  method  of  searching 
for  truth  is  the  same  in  religious  matters  as  in  other  fields. 

Those  who  profess  the  principles  of  the  Religion  of  Science 
may  belong  to  any  church  or  to  no  church.  They  may,  without 
becoming  indifferent  to  distinctions,  call  themselves  Christians,  or 
Jews,  or  believers  in  the  Religion  of  Humanity,  or  Freethinkers. 
Their  bond  of  union  is  not  a  common  ritual,  nor  forms,  nor  ceremo- 
nies, but  the  common  aim  of  searching  for,  of  trusting  in,  and  of 
living  in  agreement  with,  the  truth.  And  this  hallowed  community 
of  the  invisible  church  is  no  mere  illusion. 

To  this  invisible  church  belong  Confucius,  Zarathustra,  Moses, 
Buddha,  Christ,  all  the  prophets,  the  saints,  the  investigators  of 
truth,  the  inventors,  the  leaders  of  mankind,  the  learned  and  the 
great ;  and  also  all  the  humble,  the  meek,  the  poor  in  spirit,  those 
who  hunger  for  the  spiritual  gifts  which  the  heroes  of  thought  and 
deed  have  procured  in  their  hard  struggles  for  progress  and  for 
the  realisation  of  human  ideals. 


The  idea  of  the  Religion  of  Science  is  as  little  Utopian  as  was 
the  possibility  of  developing  astronomy  from  astrology,  or  chemistry 
from  alchemy,  for  the  progress  from  the  old  dogmatic  religions  to 
the  religion  based  upon  our  knowledge  of  the  facts  of  nature  is  ex- 
actly of  the  same  kind. 

Religions  develop  naturally.  The  religions  of  to-day  are  not, 
as  some  of  their  adherents  pretend,  the  product  of  a  supernatural 
revelation,  but  are  based  upon  the  science  of  the  times  when  they 
were  founded.  Our  religion  must  embody  the  maturest,  surest,  and 
best  established  knowledge  of  to-day. 


vi  PREFACE. 

The  Religion  of  Science  is  still  a  voice  crying  in  the  wilder- 
ness. Yet  it  comes  from  the  heart  of  mankind  and  cannot  be  sup- 
pressed. Should  it  remain  unheeded,  it  will  be  repeated  by  others 
that  shall  come  after  us,  until  its  warning  be  heard  and  obeyed. 

We  do  not  hope  to  reach  our  aim  in  the  near  future,  but  we 
are  confident  that  our  ideal  is  sound,  and  that  the  eventual  evolu- 
tion of  the  religious  views  of  mankind  will  justify  our  hopes. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Introduction i 

Principles,  Faith,  and  Doctrines 5 

The  Authority  for  Conduct i? 

Ethics  of  the  ReHgion  of  Science 25 

The  Soul .     •  33 

Immortality     .     .     ' -  45 

Mythology  and  Religion         63 

Christ  and  the  Christians ;  a  Contrast      .     .           75 

The  Catholicity  of  the  Religious  Spirit 9« 

In  Reply  to  a  Freethinker loi 

Index "9 


INTRODUCTION. 


INTRODUCTION. 

We  are  born  into  the  world  as  living,  feeling,  and 
thinking  beings.   We  live  for  a  while  and  then  we  die. 

And  what  is  our  life  ?  We  toil,  we  suffer,  we  hope, 
we  aspire,  we  work.  Our  joys  are  fleeting,  and  many 
of  them  leave  behind  them  the  lees  of  regret  and  dis- 
appointment. Only  a  few  hopes  are  realised,  only 
some  aspirations  are  fulfilled,  and  only  a  part  of  our 
efforts  is  crowned  with  success. 

Thus  our  life  appears  as  a  transient  phenomenon, 
narrow  in  its  field,  short  in  its  span  of  years,  and  lim- 
ited in  its  power  of  achievement. 

What  shall  be  our  aim  and  purpose  ? 

Shall  we  look  for  satisfaction  in  the  little  gratifica- 
tions that  come  from  the  pleasures  of  life?  And  is 
there  no  higher  object  than  to  live  and  be  merry  and 
pass  away  as  though  we  had  never  been? 

We  anxiously  look  for  support  in  tribulations,  for 
comfort  in  afflictions,  and  for  guidance  in  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  life.  And  the  assistance  that  we  find  is  our 
religion. 

How  can  we  acquire  information  concerning  our- 


4  I\^TR  OD  UC  TION. 

selves  and  the  world  in  which  we  live?  How  shall  we 
find  a  religion  ? 

Information  can  be  had  only  through  inquiry.  We 
have  to  prove  all  things  and  hold  fast  that  which  is 
good.  Says  Jesus  of  Nazareth:  ''Seek  and  ye  shall 
find." 

The  methods  by  which  we  try  to  find  a  religion  to 
support  and  guide  us  must  be  the  same  as  those  that 
we  employ  in  other  fields  of  life  and  which  are  com- 
prehended under  the  name  of  science.  In  this  sense 
we  say,  the  religion  we  seek  is  the  religion  of  science. 


PRINCIPLES.  FAITH.  AND  DOCTRINES. 


PRINCIPLES,  FAITH,  AND  DOCTRINES. 

What  is  religion  ? 

Every  religion  is,  or  should  be,  a  conviction  that 
egulates  man's  conduct,  affords  comfort  in  affliction, 
md  consecrates  ail  the  purposes  of  life. 

What  is  science? 

Science  is  the  methodical  search  for  truth  ;  and 
ruth  is  a  correct,  exhaustive,  and  concise  statement 
)f  facts. 

What  is  the  religion  of  science  ? 

The  religion  of  science  is  that  religion  wherein  man 
ispires  to  find  the  truth  by  the  m.ost  reliable  and  truly 
scientific  methods. 

The  rehgion  of  science  recognises  the  authority  of 
truth,  scientifically  proved,  as  ultimate.  It  does  not 
rely  on  human  authority,  even  though  that  authority 
pretends  to  have  special  revelations  from  some  super- 
natural source. 

The  religion  of  science  accepts  no  special  revela- 
tions, yet  it  recognises  certain  principles.  It  has  no 
creed  or  dogma,  yet  it  has  a  clearly  defined  faith.     It 


8  PRINCIPLES,   FAITH,  AND  DOCTRINES. 

does  not  prescribe  peculiar  ceremonies  or  rituals,  yet 
it  propounds  definite  doctrines  and  insists  on  a  rigor- 
ous ethical  code. 

What  are  the  principles  of  the  religion  of  science  ? 

First,  to  inquire  after  truth. 
Second,  to  accept  the  truth. 
Third,  to  reject  what  is  untrue. 
Fourth,  to  trust  in  truth. 
And  fifth,  to  live  the  truth. 

Is  there  a  difference  in  principle  between  religious 
and  scientific  truth  ? 

No,  there  is  none. 

There  is  a  hoHness  about  science  which  is  rarely- 
appreciated  either  by  priests  or  by  scientists.  Scien- 
tific truth  is  not  profane,  it  is  sacred. 

There  are  not  two  antagonistic  truths,  one  religious, 
the  other  scientific.  There  is  but  one  truth,  which  is 
to  be  discovered  by  scientific  methods  and  applied  in 
our  religious  life. 

Truth  is  one,  and  the  recognition  of  truth  is  the 
basis  of  all  genuine  religion. 

What  are  creeds  and  dogmas  ? 

Creeds  and  dogmas  are  such  religious  doctrines  as 
are  propounded  without  proof,  and  the  acceptance  of 
which  is  demanded  even  though  they  may  appear  ab- 
surd before  the  tribunal  of  science. 


PRINCIPLES,   FAITH,  AND  DOCTRINES.  9 

The  principles  of  the  religion  of  science  admit  of  no 
creeds,  yet  the  religion  of  science  has  a  faith. 

What  is  the  faith  of  the  religion  of  science? 

The  faith  of  the  religion  of  science  is  its  trust  in 
truth. 

The  difference  between  faith  and  creed  is  this  :  creed 
is  a  mere  belief,  faith  is  a  moral  attitude.  Faith  in 
creeds  is  the  determination  to  be  satisfied  with  unwar- 
ranted or  unproved  statements.  The  faith  of  the  re- 
ligion of  science  is  the  conviction  that  truth  can  be 
found,  and  that  truth  is  the  sole  redeemer. 

There  are  religious  teachers  who  expressly  forbid 
any  investigation  of  their  religious  dogmas,  and  insist 
that  rational  inquiry  shall  not  be  tolerated  in  matters 
of  faith.     Their  faith  is  called  blind  faith. 

The  religion  of  science  rejects  blind  faith  as  irre- 
ligious and  immoral,  and  preaches  that  it  is  our  duty 
to  inquire  into  all  the  questions  that  arise  in  life. 

The  religion  of  science  is  not  a  religion  of  indiffer- 
ence j  it  does  not  proclaim  that  kind  of  toleration  which 
allows  every  man  to  believe  and  act  as  he  pleases. 
On  the  contrary,  it  proclaims  most  positive  and  stern 
doctrines. 

Religious  indifference,  as  fashionable  now  as  it  has 
ever  been  in  certain  circles,  is  detestable  to  any  one 
who  is  serious  about  truth. 

Let  us  have  honest  belief  or  honest  unbelief,  and 


lo  PRINCIPLES,   FAITH,  AND  DOCTRINES, 

abandon  that  unconcerned  apathy  of  a  half-hearted 
religion. 

He  that  is  the  first  and  is  the  last  has  said  : 

''I  know  thy  works,  that  thou  art  neither  cold  nor 
hot.  I  would  that  thou  wert  cold  or  hot.  So  then, 
because  thou  art  lukewarm,  and  neither  cold  nor  hot, 
I  will  spue  thee  out  of  my  mouth." 

What  the  Roman  church  claims  to  be,  the  religion 
of  science  is.  The  religion  of  science  is  the  catholic 
and  orthodox  religion. 

We  do  not  say  that  the  truth  as  we  know  it  now  is 
perfect  and  complete.  Not  at  all.  We  know  compara- 
tively little,  and  the  world  is  inexhaustible  in  problems. 
But  we  do  know  that  truth  can  be  attained  step  by  step. 
Inquiry  into  truth  is  not  only  a  scientific  necessity,  it  is 
also  a  religious  duty,  and  no  pious  devotion  is  of  the 
right  kind,  unless  it  be  accompanied  by  the  spirit  of 
research. 

While  the  religion  of  science  rejects  dogmas,  it  is 
not  without  doctrines;  its  faith  is  not  without  sub- 
stance. 

What  is  the  source  of  the  doctrines  of  its  faith  ? 

The  doctrines  of  the  religion  of  science  are  the  re- 
sult of  experience,  not  of  one  man  only,  but  of  the 
whole  race. 

They  have  to  be  proved  and  are  always  liable  to 
critical  revision. 


PRINCIPLES,   FAITH,  AND  DOCTRINES.  n 

What  does  the  religion  of  science  teach  regarding 
rituals  and  ceremonies  ? 

The  religious  life  of  the  established  religions  con- 
sists to  a  great  extent  in  the  use  of  sacraments,  cere- 
monies, and  rituals,  symbols  instituted  to  convey  in 
allegorical  form  religious  doctrines,  and  to  express  by 
visible  signs  and  outward  forms  the  invisible  spiritual 
relations  between  men  and  God.  Baptism,  confession, 
the  holy  communion,  matrimony,  are  such  rituals.  The 
religion  of  science  does  not  deny  that  appropriate  forms 
are  needed  to  express  in  a  worthy  and  adequate  way 
those  transactions  which  are  of  a  religious  nature. 
Ceremonies  are  one  way  of  consecrating  life  and  the 
most  important  events  of  life.  Yet  the  symbols  must  ad- 
equately express  the  ideas,  and  the  ideas  must  be  true. 

The  religion  of  science  attaches  no  intrinsic  value 
to  symbols  themselves,  but  only  to  their  meanings. 
The  symbols  must  not  be  conceived  as  the  Indian  con- 
ceives the  spell  of  the  medicine-man.  They  are  mean- 
ingless and  inefficient  aside  from  the  meaning  that 
men  put  into  them.  There  is  no  magic  power  in  them. 
The  religion  of  science  has  no  objection  to  ceremonies, 
but  it  does  not  prescribe  special  and  peculiar  forn^s  as 
essential  to  religion,  or  as  indispensable  conditions  of 
salvation. 

What  are  the  doctrines  of  the  religion  of  science  ? 

(i)  The  religion  of  science  propounds  as  one  of  its 

main  doctrines  that  every  act  has  its  unavoidable  con- 


12  PRINCIPLES,   FAITH,   AND  DOCTRINES, 

sequences,  good  or  evil,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
act.  (2)  The  religion  of  science  teaches  that  the  moral 
commandments  in  which  almost  all  the  established  re- 
ligions agree  are  sound.  (3)  That  which  is  good  and 
that  which  is  evil  must  be  found  out  by  scientific  in- 
vestigation. (4)  The  religion  of  science  accepts  the 
verdicts  of  science. 

This  does  not  mean  that  the  opinion  of  every  scien- 
tist is  to  be  accepted  as  science,  but  only  those  state- 
ments which  are  proved  by  rational  arguments  and 
can  be  verified  by  experience,  or,  if  possible,  also  by 
experiments. 

What  is  the  place  of  scientists  in  the  religion  of 
science? 

Scientists,  as  seekers  of  truth,  are  prophets  of  the 
religion  of  science. 

Prophets  and  priests  have  authority  in  the  measure 
in  which  they  represent  the  authority  of  moral  conduct. 
They  have  no  authority  of  themselves.  Thus,  to  the 
faithful  believer  no  amxount  of  error  or  fraud  in  proph- 
ets and  priests  will  overthrow  their  trust  in  religion. 

The  same  is  true  of  science. 

Scientists  have  authority  in  such  measure  as  they 
have  investigated,  found,  and  proved  the  truth.  They 
have  no  authority  of  themselves. 

Scientists  are  subject  to  error,  yet  no  amount  of 
error  can  overthrow  science  and  the  authority  of 
science. 


PRINCIPLES,   FAITH,  AND  DOCTRINES.  i3 

The  religion  of  science  is  based  upon  the  authority 
of  science,  not  of  scientists,  and  science  is  not  only 
physics  or  the  so-called  natural  sciences,  but  it  includes 
also  sociology  and  ethics.  Scientists  as  prophets  of 
truth  are  indispensable  helpmates  of  the  preachers  of 
morality.  Yet  scientists  and  preachers  are  mortal, 
hke  other  human  beings,  and  both  of  them  are  liable 
to  error. 

As  priests  are  frequently  found  wanting  in  religious 
virtues,  so  scientific  professors  are  often  lacking  in  the 
ethics  of  science. 

Scientists  object  to  popes  ;  but  how  many  of  them 
revere  their  own  persons  as  infallible  vicars  of  truth  ! 
And  how  arrogant,  as  a  rule,  how  obstinate  and  per- 
vicacious  is  the  tenor  of  their  disputes  !  What  stub- 
born sticklers  are  they  for  trifles  !  How  great  is  their 
vanity  !  Happily,  there  are  exceptions.  Yet  even  if 
there  were  no  exceptions,  the  authority  of  science 
would  stand  in  spite  of  all  the  shortcomings  of  scien- 
tists. 

It  is  to  be  conceded  that  scientific  men  are  always 
at  variance  among  themselves  concerning  truths  to  be 
discovered.  This,  however,  does  not  contradict  the 
fact  that  the  truth  can  be  found  and  clearly  stated. 
Some  questions  have  been  settled  for  good,  others  are 
still  open.  The  former  are  to  be  regarded  as  scientific 
truths.  They  are  such  as  will  be  agreed  upon  by  all 
those  who  take  the  trouble  to  study  the  subject  care- 
fully.  The  open  questions  only  are  the  objects  of  con- 


14  PRINCIPLES,   FAITH,  AND  DOCTRINES. 

tention  among  the  searchers  for  truth,  and  their  very 
disagreement  is  a  most  important  means  for  the  dis- 
covery of  truth. 

What  is  our  relation  to  truth  ? 

Truth  is  a  correct  statement  of  facts  and  the  laws 
of  its  being  ;  it  describes  a  pov/er  independent  of  us. 

Whether  or  not  truth  will  be  such  as  we  desire  it 
to  be,  is  not  the  question.  We  cannot  fashion  or  alter 
it.  Being  unalterable,  we  can  only  accept  it  and  regu- 
late our  life  accordingly.  There  is  no  choice  left 
for  us. 

There  is  no  reason,  however,  to  be  timid  when 
finding  ourselves  at  the  mercy  of  a  power  beyond  our 
control.  We  have  developed  into  thinking,  feeling, 
and  aspiring  beings,  and  our  rational  nature,  which 
appears  in  its  fullest  efflorescence  in  science,  enables 
us  to  make  firm  and  certain  steps.  We  can  combat 
the  evils  of  life,  and  better  conquer  them,  the  deeper 
and  greater  our  insight  is  into  truth.  The  very  fact  of 
our  existence,  such  as  it  is,  and  the  practical  impor- 
tance of  truth,  inspires  us  with  confidence  in  that  All- 
being,  in  which  and  through  which  we  have  originated, 
and  the  laws  of  whose  nature  are  beyond  our  control. 
We  have  no  choice  left  but  to  trust  in  truth,  and  we 
have  also  good  reasons  to  do  so. 

It  is  true  that  we  are  surrounded  by  mysteries, 
temptations,  and  afflictions.     Yet  these  conditions  of 


PRINCIPLES,  FAITH,   AND  DOCTRINES.  15 

our  life  urge  us  the  more  seriously  to  search  for  the 
truth,  lest  we  go  astray  and  become  the  victims  of  our 
errors.  There  is  certainly  no  other  choice  left  for  us 
than  to  take  reality  as  it  is,  to  understand  it,  and  to 
act  in  concord  with  its  laws.  We  cannot  make  the 
truth ;  we  cannot  fashion  it  at  our  pleasure  ;  we  can 
only  accept  it.  But  blessed  is  he  who  trusts  in  the 
truth,  who  barkens  to  its  behests,  and  leads  a  life  in 
which  obedience  to  truth  is  exemplified. 


THE  AUTHORITY  FOR  CONDUCT. 


THE  AUTHORITY  FOR  CONDUCT. 

Is  there  any  authority  for  conduct?  How  do  we 
know  of  it,  and  what  is  its  nature? 

Truth  is  a  correct  statement  of  facts ;  not  of  single 
facts,  but  of  facts  in  their  connection  with  the  totaHty 
of  other  facts,  and,  finally,  with  all  facts,  so  that  we 
can  see  the  regularities  that  obtain  as  well  in  one  as  in 
other  cases  ;  or,  popularly  speaking,  that  we  can  under- 
stand their  why  and  wherefore. 

Truth,  accordingly,  is  a  description  of  existence  un- 
der the  aspect  of  eternity  {sub  specie  ceternttatis).  We 
have  to  view  facts  so  as  to  discover  in  them  that  which 
is  permanent.  We  must  dig  down  to  that  which  is 
immutable  and  everlasting,  to  that  which  will  be  the 
same  in  the  present  instance  as  in  any  other  instance, 
so  as  to  behold  in  facts  the  law  of  their  being.  We 
can  make  or  mar  almost  all  objects  with  v/hich  in  our 
experience  we  come  in  contact;  but  that  peculiar  fea- 
ture of  facts  which  we  describe  in  laws,  the  everlasting, 
the  immutable  and  eternal,  that  which  will  be  the  same 
in  the  same  conditions,  is  beyond  our  control.  We 
cannot  alter  or  fashion  it.  It  is  as  it  is,  and  we  have 
to  mind  it  in  all  things  which  we  do  or  aspire  for. 


20  THE  AUTHORITY  FOR  CONDUCT. 

These  wonderful  features  of  facts,  which  we  call 
laws,  have  shaped  the  world  and  man,  and  the  moral 
ideals  of  man.  They  are  shaping  the  fate  of  the  uni- 
verse still,  and  will  continue  to  shape  it  for  all  time  to 
come.  They  are  the  everlasting  in  nature,  and  if,  in  a 
figurative  sense,  we  personify  nature,  we  can  speak  of 
nature's  laws  as  that  which  constitutes  her  character. 

When  reflecting  on  this  peculiar  character  of  real- 
ity, we  are  overawed  by  its  grandeur,  but  the  most 
wonderful  thing  about  it  is  that  the  laws  of  nature  are 
ultimately  not  mystical,  but  easily  intelligible. 

Science  teaches  us,  step  by  step,  that  all  laws  form 
a  harmonious  system  of  laws.  They  are  all  corollaries 
of  an  all-pervading  regularity.  We  have  to  regard  all 
special  laws  as  applications  of  general  laws  and  learn 
thus  why  they  must  be  such  as  they  are  and  cannot  be 
otherwise. 

If  science  were,  or  could  be  perfected  to  omnis- 
cience, the  lav/s  of  being,  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt, 
would  be  pellucid  as  glass,  and  even  in  their  most 
complicated  instances  as  obviously  self-evident  as  2  x 
2=4,  and  the  all-pervading  plan  would  appear  strik- 
ingly simple. 

Yet  how  prodigious  and  portentous  are  the  results 
of  this  intrinsic  harmony !  What  strict  uniformity  and 
what  astonishing  variety  !  What  rigidity  of  law,  and 
yet  what  a  free  play  for  all  possible  variations  !  A 
stringent  and  irrefragable  order  in  constantly  changing 
conditions  ! 


THE  AUTHORITY  FOR  CONDUCT.  21 

The  everlasting  in  existence  is  the  ultimate  author- 
ity for  our  conduct,  and,  as  such,  it  has,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  religion,  been  called  by  the  name  of  God. 

The  evolution  of  social  beings  takes  place  as  all 
other  events  of  nature  according  to  law,  and  this  law 
is  briefly  called  the  moral  law  of  nature.  The  moral 
law  is  as  stern,  implacable,  and  irrefragable  as  any 
other  law.  Wherever  it  is  heeded  it  will  bring  bless- 
ings ;  wherever  it  is  disobeyed  it  will  be  followed  by 
curses. 

All  religious  commands  are  human  formulas  de- 
signed to  inform  people  how  to  live  in  accord  with 
the  moral  law.  Not  the  authority  of  religious  com- 
mands, but  that  of  the  moral  law,  is  ultimate.  Reli- 
gious commands  derive  their  justification  from  the 
moral  law  of  nature.  They  are  right  if  they  are  in 
agreement  with  it,  otherwise  they  are  wrong. 

The  authority  for  conduct  is  a  reality,  the  existence 
of  which  can  be  established  by  scientific  investigation. 
The  moral  law  of  nature  is  as  undeniable  as  the  exist- 
ence of  gravitation  and  as  the  reliability  of  mathe- 
matics. 

* 

What  has  science  to  say  of  God  ? 

Science  does  not  speak  of  God,  and  need  not  speak 
of  God,  because  it  employs  another  terminology  than 
religion.  Moreover,  it  does  not  search  for  the  eternal 
of  nature  in  its  totality,  but  in  its  various  and  particu- 


22  THE  AUTHORITY  FOR  CONDUCT 

lar  manifestations  only,  and  expresses  abstractly  the 
results  of  its  investigations  in  formulas  called  natural 
laws. 

While  science  does  not  speak  of  God,  it  teaches 
God ;  for  every  law  of  nature  is  a  part  of  God's  being. 
Every  law  of  nature  is  in  its  sphere  an  authority  for 
conduct  \  it  is  a  power  which  can  be  adapted  to  our 
wants  only  when  we  adapt  ourselves  to  it.  It  is  inde- 
pendent of  our  wishes  and  cannot  be  infringed  upon 
with  impunity. 

All  the  great  religions  of  the  world  which  (with  the 
sole  exception  of  Buddhism)  have  called  the  ultimate 
authority  for  conduct  ''  God,"  have  represented  him  in 
the  image  of  man.  Religious  Theism  is  almost  without 
exception  anthropomorphic. 


The  various  views  of  God  are  briefly  denoted  by 
the  following  terms  : 

Theism,  or  the  belief,  without  any  qualification,  that 
God,  whatever  be  his  nature,  exists. 

Atheism,  or  the  view  that  rejects  any  conception 
of  God. 

Polytheism,  or  the  belief  in  many  gods. 

Monotheism,  or  the  behef  that  there  is  but  one  God. 

Anthropotheism,  or  the  belief  that  God  is  a  personal 
being  like  man. 

Pantheism,  or  the  belief  that  identifies  the  All  with 
God. 


THE  AUTHORITY  FOR  CONDUCT.  23 

Deism,  or  the  view  adopted  by  the  Freethinkers  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  who  rejected  miracles,  but  held 
that  God  is  a  personal  being,  the  Creator  and  Legislator 
of  the  universe. 

Entheism,  or  the  view  that  regards  God  as  insepar- 
able from  the  world.      He  is  the  eternal  in  nature. 

Which  conception  of  God  is  adopted  by  the  religion 
of  science  ? 

The  religion  of  science  is  not  Atheistic,  but  The- 
istic. 

Monotheism,  as  it  is  commonly  held,  is  the  belief 
in  a  single  God.  In  this  sense  monotheism  is  actually 
a  polytheism  that  has  reduced  its  gods  to  one  in  num- 
ber. Yet  God  is  neither  one  single  individual  God  nor 
many  Gods.  Number  does  not  apply  to  him.  God  is 
one  not  in  the  sense  that  there  is  one  kind  of  Godhood. 
There  is  not  one  God-being  ;  but  there  is  divinity. 
God  is  one  in  the  same  sense  that  there  is  but  one 
reason  and  but  one  truth. 

The  religion  of  science  rejects  Anthropotheism  and 
also  Deism,  which  is  only  a  peculiar  kind  of  Anthropo- 
theism. 

The  God  of  the  religion  of  science  is  not  a  person. 
However,  he  is  not  less  than  a  person,  but  infinitely  more 
than  a  person.  The  authority  for  conduct  which  the 
religion  of  science  teaches  is  divine  and  holy.  We 
should  neither  call  God  personal  nor  impersonal,  but 
superpersonal. 


24  THE  AUTHORITY  FOR  CONDUCT. 

The  religion  of  science  does  not  accept  Pantheism. 
It  does  not  regard  nature  and  all  parts  of  nature  or 
all  aspects  of  nature  as  identical  with  God.  The  eter- 
nal of  nature  only  is  God.  Those  features  alone  are 
divine  which  serve  us  as  authority  for  conduct.  We 
do  not  look  up  with  reverence  to  the  forces  of  nature 
which  we  utilise,  but  only  to  that  power  which  moulds 
worlds,  which  fashions  our  being,  and  v/hich  moves 
onward  in  the  progress  of  evolution. 

This  view  we  call  Entheism. 


ETHICS  OF  THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE. 


ETHICS  OF  THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE. 

What  is  the  essential  difference  between  religious 
and  irreligious  ethics  ? 

The  ethics  of  the  old  religions  can  briefly  be  char- 
acterised as  obedience  to  God,  while  the  ethics  of  the 
atheist  consists  in  the  attempt  to  bring  about  as  much 
happiness  as  possible.  The  former  establishes  an  ob- 
jective authority  of  conduct  which  imposes  duties  upon 
us ;  while  the  latter  makes  the  criterion  of  morality 
subjective.  The  former  is  briefly  called  the  ethics  of 
duty  ;  the  latter  the  ethics  of  pleasure  or  hedonism. 

The  religion  of  science  rejects  the  ethics  of  pleas- 
ure and  accepts  the  ethics  of  duty.  The  authority  of 
conduct  is  an  objective  power  in  the  world,  a  true 
reality  which  cares  little  about  our  sentiments.  We 
cannot  rely  upon  our  sentiments,  our  desire  for  plea- 
sure, our  pursuit  of  happiness,  for  a  correct  determina- 
tion of  our  duty. 

What  is  the  part  of  happiness  in  ethics  ? 

The  ethical  problem  has  nothing  to  do  with  happi- 
ness ;  the  ethical  problem  proposes  the  question.  What 


28  ETHICS  OF  THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE. 

is  our  duty  ?  And  our  duty  remains  our  duty  whether 
it  pleases  us  or  not. 

The  problem  concerning  happiness  is  not,  How  can 
we  satisfy  as  much  as  possible  the  desires  which,  we 
hope,  will  make  us  happy,  but  how  shall  we  learn  to 
be  happy  while  attending  to  our  duty  ? 

The  fact  is,  that  the  neglect  of  our  duties  causes 
great  misery  ;  but  the  attendance  to  our  duties  does  not 
by  any  means  always  imply  an  increase  of  happiness. 

What  is  the  purport  of  happiness  ? 

Happiness  of  which  men  speak  so  much  and  which 
is  often  so  eagerly  sought  in  a  wild  pursuit,  does  not 
at  all  play  an  important  part  in  the  real  world  of  facts. 
Nor  does  it  lie  in  the  direction  tov/ard  which  our  de- 
sires impel  us.  Happiness  is  a  mere  subjective  ac- 
companiment in  life  which  is  of  a  relative  nature. 

Happiness  may  be  compared  to  a  fraction,  the  de- 
nominator of  which  consists  in  our  wants  and  desires  ; 
the  num.erator,  of  their  satisfactions  ;  and  man's  nature 
is  such  that  their  relation  remains  always  a  proper  frac- 
tion. The  denominator  is  always  greater  than  the 
numerator ;  for  as  soon  as  the  satisfactions  habitually 
increase,  they  are  accepted  as  a  matter  of  course  ;  we 
become  accustomed  to  them,  so  that  we  no  longer  feel 
them  as  pleasures,  which  means,  in  the  terms  of  our 
simile,  we  at  once  increase  the  denominator  in  equal 
proportions. 


ETHICS  OF  THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE.  29 

Is  there  an  increase  of  happiness  through  evolu- 
tion ? 

Duty  requires  us  to  aspire  forward  on  the  road  of 
progress.  But  while  our  pains  are  constantly  lessened 
and  our  various  wants  are  more  and  more  gratified, 
the  average  happiness  does  not  increase.  It  rather  de- 
creases. The  child  is,  as  a  rule,  happier  than  the 
man  ;  and  a  man  of  little  culture  is  jollier  than  a  sage. 
The  fool  is  happy  in  his  foolishness. 

Shall  we  abandon  progress,  culture,  and  wisdom, 
when  we  learn  that  our  happiness  will  thereby  be  di- 
minished ? 

If  hedonism  were  the  right  ethical  principle,  we 
ought  to  sacrifice  anything  for  an  increase  of  happi- 
ness ;  but  it  is  not. 

Nature  does  not  mind  our  theories.  Our  theories 
must  mind  nature.  We  have  to  grow  and  to  advance, 
and  our  happiness  is  only  an  incidental  feature  in  the 
fate  of  our  lives.  In  considering  the  duties  of  life,  we 
should  not  and  we  cannot  inquire  whether  our  obe- 
dience to  duty  will  increase  or  decrease  happiness. 

Shall  we  regard  the  pursuit  of  happiness  as  im- 
moral ? 

Buddhistic  and  Christian  ethics  recognise  the  futil- 
ity of  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  But  in  misunder- 
standing the  spirit  of  the  will  of  God,  of  the  authority 
of  conduct,  of  the  moral  order  of  the  Universe,  some 


30 


ETHICS  OF  THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE. 


disciples  of  Buddha  and  of  Christ  teach  the  ethics  of 
asceticism.  They  regard  the  pursuit  of  happiness  as 
immoral. 

It  is  remarkable  that  neither  Buddha  nor  Christ 
taught  the  ethics  of  asceticism.  Buddha  expressly 
declared  that  self-tormenting  was  injurious  and  un- 
necessary for  salvation,  and  Christ  did  not  request  his 
disciples  to  fast.  He  himself  ate  and  drank  so  that  his 
enemies  reproached  him  with  being  ^'a  man  glutton- 
ous and  a  wine  bibber"  (Matth.  xi,  19). 

What  does  the  religion  of  science  teach  of  asceti- 
cism ? 

The  ethics  of  asceticism  is  the  morality  of  the 
monk.  It  is  negativism.  It  aims  at  the  destruction 
of  life. 

The  religion  of  science  does  not  accept  hedonism, 
but  neither  does  it  accept  asceticism.  The  one  is  as 
erroneous  as  the  other. 

The  religion  of  science  bids  us  inquire  into  the  du- 
ties of  life  and  to  attend  to  them. 

Man  must  study  his  own  self  ;  he  must  understand 
which  of  his  desires  are  good  and  which  are  bad.  He 
must  inquire  into  the  nature  of  the  authority  of  conduct 
which  prescribes  duties  to  him.  He  must  strengthen 
that  part  of  his  soul  which  aspires  to  perform  duties 
and  even  identify  his  very  being  with  the  behests  of 
the  authority  of  conduct  :  He  must  become  an  incar- 
nation of  God. 


ETHICS  OF  THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE.  31 

This  will  teach  self-control  as  the  main  duty  to- 
ward one's  self  and  justice  as  the  main  duty  toward 
others. 

Asceticism  may  be  regarded  as  an  attempt  at  doing 
more  than  duty  requires.  The  ascetic  tries  to  become 
divine  by  suppressing  or  destroying  the  human. 

As  soon  as  we  understand  that  the  truly  human  is 
a  revelation  of  the  divine  in  nature,  we  shall  see  the 
error  of  regarding  them  as  antagonistic.  By  suppress- 
ing the  human,  we  suppress  the  divine.* 

Let  us  not  regard  that  which  is  truly  human  as 
being  beneath  the  dignity  of  moral  aspirations. 

The  pursuit  of  happiness  is  not  wrong,  and  to  enjoy 
the  pleasures  of  hfe  is  no  sin.  It  is  only  wrong  to  re- 
gard happiness  as  the  criterion  of  ethics  and  to  believe 
that  pleasures  are  the  ultimate  aim  of  life. 

Recreations,  pleasures,  and  aspiring  to  happiness 
are  not  the  purposes  of  life,  yet  they  are  in  their  sea- 
son not  only  allowable,  but  even  moral  duties.  Re- 
laxation is  necessary,  and  happiness  imparts  a  buoy- 
ancy which  helps  man  to  accomplish  his  work.  A 
rigorous  suppression  of  our  natural  inclinations  renders 
us  unfit  to  attend  to  our  duties.  There  is  no  virtue  in 
morosity,  and  the  happiness  of  living  creatures,  is,  as 
it  were,  the  divine  breath  which  animates  them. 

Every  fact  is  suggestive,  and  every  truth  implies  a 

*  In  this  sense  the  sentence  of  Terence  is  often  quoted  :  ''Nihil  humani 
a  )ne  alienuvt  puto." 


32 


ETHICS  OF  THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE, 


duty.  Our  own  existence,  the  relations  to  our  fellow 
beings,  the  nature  of  reality  and  the  constitution  of 
the  Universe — in  a  word,  everything  teaches  us  les- 
sons which  we  have  to  mind.  There  are  duties  toward 
ourselves,  toward  our  fellow  creatures,  and  toward  the 
future  of  mankind. 

The  prescripts  of  the  religion  of  science  keeping 
aloof  from  hedonism  and  from  asceticism,  may  be 
briefly  formulated  as  follows  : 

Know  thyself  and  the  laws  of  thy  being. 

Learn  the  duties  which  the  laws  of  thy  being  imply. 

Attend  unfalteringly  to  thy  duties. 


THE  SOUL. 


THE  SOUL 

What  am  I  ?  Whence  dc  I  come,  whither  do  I  go, 
and  what  is  the  substance  that  constitutes  my  being? 

My  fellow-beings  appear  to  me,  like  all  other  ob- 
jects of  my  surroundings,  as  material  bodies,  which 
are  in  motion  ;  and  so  I  appear  to  them  and  to  myself. 
But  the  nature  of  my  own  self  is  different.  I  am  a  liv- 
ing and  feeling  being.  My  own  self  manifests  itself  in 
consciousness.  I  am  aware  of  my  own  existence  ;  and 
the  whole  range  of  my  existence  in  so  far  as  I  am  di- 
rectly aware  of  it,  is  called  the  soul. 

What  is  the  nature  of  our  soul? 

Our  soul  consists  of  impulses,  dispositions,  and 
ideas.     I  am  a  living,  willing,  and  thinking  being. 

Impulses  are  tendencies  to  act,  naturally  called 
forth  in  irritable  substance  by  all  kinds  of  stimuli. 
Habits  are  acquired  by  the  frequent  repetition  of  im- 
pulses. Impulses  grown  strong  by  inveterate  habits 
are  called  passions. 

Inherited  habits  constitute  dispositions  or  propen- 
sities which  awake  to  activity  on  the  sHghtest  provoca- 
tion.    They  form  the  foundation  of  the  various  func- 


36  THE  SOUL. 

tions  of  the  organs  of  the  organism,  and  also  of  the 
tenor  of  conscious  soul-life.  The  latter  is  generally 
called  temperament. 

Ideas  are  representations  of  things,  or  of  qualities 
of  things,  or  of  relations  among  things.  When  ideas 
enter  into  the  causation  of  action  as  the  determinant 
element,  they  are  called  motor- ideas  or  motives. 

The  elementary  impulses  of  our  soul  are  not  clearly 
and  distinctly  perceived.  They  mingle  into  one  com- 
mon sensation,  which  is  quite  general  and  vague. 
Sometimes  only  by  special  disturbances  do  some  of 
the  elementary  impulses  rise  into  prominence,  appear- 
ing as  hunger  or  thirst  or  pain  of  some  kind. 

The  realm  of  the  activity  of  our  elementary  im- 
pulses constitutes  what  we  feel  as  our  life. 

Every  impulse  is  a  tendency  to  move  ;  and  in  so 
far  as  impulses  are  called  forth  by  stimuli  which  act 
upon  the  living  substance,  they  are  called  ''  reactions." 

As  soon  as  impulses  become  clearly  conscious  they 
are  called  will.  Will,  accordingly,  is  a  very  complex 
kind  of  impulse.  Will  is  an  impulse  in  which  a  clear 
conception  of  the  result  of  the  motion  constitutes  the 
main  factor  of  the  tendency  to  move.  In  other  words, 
will  is  an  impulse  which  has  developed  into  a  motor- 
idea. 

How  do  ideas  originate? 

Ideas  develop  out  of  feelings. 

That  which  characterises  the  soul  of  thinking  beings, 


THE  SOUL.  37 

is  the  significance  which  its  feelings  possess.  Certain 
sensations  are  produced  by  certain  stimuh,  the  same 
sensations  always  by  the  same  stimuli ;  and  these  pe- 
culiar forms  of  various  feelings  become  indicators  of  the 
presence  of  the  various  conditions  that  cause  them. 
Thus  they  acquire  meaning,  and  meaning  produces 
clearness.  Meaning  changes  dim  feelings  into  con- 
sciousness. 

The  origin  of  meaning  in  feehngs  is  the  birth  of 
mind. 

Sensations  which  take  place  inside  the  organism 
are,  through  habits  and  inherited  dispositions,  pro- 
jected to  the  outside,  where  experience  has  taught  us 
to  expect  them.  Sensations  are  signs,  indicating  ob- 
jective realities,  and  when  through  the  mechanism  of 
language  sentient  beings  develop  word-symbols,  which 
are  signs  of  signs,  representing  whole  classes  of  reali- 
ties, they  rise  into  the  sphere  of  human  existence. 

What  is  thought  ?  What  is  rational  thought  ?  What 
is  reason  ? 

The  interaction  which  takes  place  between  ideas 
is  called  thought. 

All  sensations  enter  into  relations  with  the  mem- 
ories of  former  sensations  ;  and  thus  sentient  beings 
naturally  develop  into  thinking  beings.  Human  thought 
which  discovers  and  utilises  the  presence  of  universal 
features  in  reality  is  called  rational  thought ;  reason 
being  the  norm  of  correct  thinking. 


38  THE  SOUL 

The  soul  consists  of  many  various  impulses,  but  it 
possesses  at  the  same  time  a  peculiar  unity.  How 
are  we  to  account  for  the  unity  of  the  soul  ? 

A  man  can  think  incompatible  ideas,  but  he  cannot 
act  according  to  them,  at  least  not  at  the  same  time. 
He  can,  to  be  sure,  successively  obey  motives  that  are 
self-contradictory,  but  he  will  have  to  stand  the  con- 
sequences ;  so  that  a  man  will  have  to  regret  his  ac- 
tions as  soon  as  wiser  and  better  ideas  become  dom- 
inant in  his  soul. 

The  necessity  of  action  imperatively  imposes  upon 
the  soul  a  unity  which  would  otherwise  scarcely  origi- 
nate. The  whole  organism  has  to  act  as  a  unity  ;  con- 
flicting impulses  and  contradictory  ideas  must  come  to 
an  agreement.  And  thus  the  necessity  of  harmonious 
action  exercises  a  wholesome  and  educating  influence. 
It  test«5  ideas  in  practical  issues;  it  matures  them  by 
bringing  incompatible  motor-ideas  into  conflict,  thus 
establishing  consistency  in  the  soul. 

If  situations  arise  in  which  several  various  im- 
pulses and  conflicting  motor-ideas  tend  to  be  realised 
in  action,  a  struggle  will  begin  among  them  and  con- 
tinue until  the  strongest  one  gains  the  upper  hand. 
This  strongest  motive,  then,  is  executed  by  the  organ- 
ism. 

The  power  of  passions  is  all  but  irresistible  in  the 
savage,  while  rational  ideas  gradually  gain  in  strength 
with  the  advance  of  civilisation.  Long  experience, 
inherited  habits,  and  to  a  great  extent,  also,  repeated 


THE  SOUL.  39 

regret  for  rash  actions,  accustom  man  to  act  only  after 
sufficient  and  careful  deliberation. 

The  habit  of  suppressing  passions  until  all  conflict- 
ing motor-ideas  have  measured  their  forces  against 
each  other  becomes  easier  and  easier,  and  its  exercise 
is  called  self-control. 

The  character  of  a  soul  depends  upon  the  impulses 
and  motor-ideas  that  are  dominant  in  it.  They  are 
the  decisive  elements  which  determine  the  actions  of 
a  man. 

The  decision  which  is  the  final  outcome  of  delib- 
eration is  comparable  to  a  motion  carried  in  a  legisla- 
tive body.  It  is  like  the  majority  vote  adopting  a  plan 
upon  the  execution  of  which  the  whole  body  of  voters 
is  now  resolved,  and  these  resolutions  of  the  soul  are 
called  the  will  of  man. 

What  is  the  name  of  the  unity  of  man's  soul? 

The  idea  which  represents  the  organism  as  a  whole 
is  called  the  ''!"  or  ego,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  course 
that  the  I  or  ego  always  regards  the  final  outcome  of 
deliberations  as  its  own  resolutions. 

The  ego,  by  itself,  is  an  empty  symbol.     Its  con- 
tents are  those  which  the  ego   stands   for,  viz.,  the 
quahties  of  the  whole  soul;  that  is,  of  the  impulses 
and  motor-ideas  of  the  personality  which  the  ego  rep 
resents. 

We  say,  *'I  have  ideas";  but  we  ought  to  say,  '^I 
consist  of  ideas."     My  ideas  are  real  parts  of  myself. 


40 


THE  SOUL. 


The  phrase,  *'I  have  an  idea, "can  only  mean  that 
this  idea  stands  in  connection  with  the  ego-idea,  rep- 
resenting the  whole  personality  of  myself.  It  is  at  the 
moment  present  in  the  focus  of  consciousness. 

The  contents  of  the  ego  of  a  man,  viz.,  the  constitu- 
ents of  his  personality,  are  changeable.  He  wills  now 
this,  now  that,  and  his  actions  at  different  times  are 
often  very  incompatible  with  each  other.  But  there  is 
a  continuity  in  his  acts  which  is  recorded  in  a  chain  of 
memories  called  recollections,  in  all  of  which  the  act- 
ing person  regards  himself  as  a  constant  factor  and  is 
called  by  the  same  pronoun  ''I."  The  expression  '*  I  " 
being  for  a  continuous  series  of  acts  the  same  in  spite 
of  many  changes,  produces  the  illusion  that  the  acting 
person  himself  remains  the  same  throughout. 

However,  we  know  for  certain  that  the  acting  per- 
son, our  organism,  and  the  ideas  of  which  we  consist, 
do  by  no  means  remain  unchanged.  In  the  same  way 
that  our  surroundings  change,  so  we  ourselves,  our 
thoughts  and  desires,  our  organism,  and  our  very  souls 
change.  We  call  the  rose-bush  which  blooms  in  June, 
and  is  a  dry,  thorny  stick  in  December,  the  same  rose- 
bush. We  call  our  body  the  same  body,  although  the 
materials  of  which  it  consists  are  comparable  to  a  com- 
plex whirl  of  atoms,  the  unity  of  which  consists  in  the 
preservation  of  its  form,  for  new  materials  are  con- 
stantly pouring  in,  while  part  of  the  old  ones  pass  out. 
And  finally,  we  call  our  spiritual  self  by  the  same  name 
<*I,"  viewing  it  as  a  unity  so  long  as  the  continuity  of 


THE  SOUL.  41 

its  existence  is  preserved,  although  our  ideas  do  not 
remain  the  same,  either  in  strength  or  in  their  con- 
tents. The  changes  in  our  character  at  an  advanced 
age  may  be  comparatively  slight,  but  there  are,  never- 
theless, changes,  which  are  not  less  real  because  they 
remain  unheeded.  Our  self  being  the  measure  of 
things,  they  appear  to  change  when  v/e  change,  and  we 
seem  to  remain  the  same  ;  yet  this  unalterable  same- 
ness of  our  self  is  a  fiction. 

There  is  an  error  very  prevalent  that  the  ego-idea 
is  the  real  soul.  The  existence  of  an  ego-soul,  how- 
ever, has  been  abandoned  by  science.  Need  we  add 
that  all  those  whose  views  and  sentiments  are  closely 
intertwined  with  the  conception  of  an  ego-soul,  look 
upon  its  surrender  as  a  destruction  of  the  very  root  of 
religion  and  of  all  religious  hopes  ? 

What  is  the  effect  upon  religion  of  surrounding  the 
conception  of  an  ego-soul  ? 

Our  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  human  soul 
has  been  as  thoroughly  altered  through  the  results  of 
modern  scientific  research  as  our  view  of  the  universe 
since  the  times  of  Copernicus.  Copernicus  abandoned 
the  geocentric,  and  psychology  the  egocentric  stand- 
point ;  and  future  religious  development  will  be  in- 
fluenced in  no  less  a  degree  by  the  latter  than  it  has 
been  by  the  former. 

New  truths  appear  at  first  sight  always  appalling. 
They  come  to  destroy  the  errors  which  we  have  ac- 


42 


THE  SOUL. 


customed  ourselves  to  cherish  as  truths.  Thus  the 
truth  naturally  appears  to  be  destructive.  But  look  at 
the  truth  closer,  and  you  will  find  that  it  is  after  all 
better  and  greater  and  nobler  than  the  most  beautiful 
fiction  woven  of  errors. 

Appalling,  and  destructive  of  the  very  foundations 
of  our  religious  conceptions,  as  the  surrender  of  the 
ego  may  seem  at  first  sight,  a  closer  acquaintance  with 
the  subject  will  shov/  that  the  scientific  solution  of  the 
problem  of  soul  life  does  not  annihilate  but  elevates 
and  purifies  rehgion.  It  dispels  the  mystery  of  rehgious 
doctrines  and  preserves  their  ethical  kernel. 

There  is  no  metaphysical  ego-soul,  yet  there  is  the 
real  soul  of  our  ideas  and  ideal  aspirations,  and  the 
value  of  the  latter  is  not  less  because  the  former  has 
proved  to  be  an  error. 

All  the  religious  enthusiasm  which  men  have  pro- 
fessed to  have  for  their  ego-souls,  and  of  which  they 
have  proved  the  earnestness  in  deeds,  expresses  the 
natural  sentiments  for  their  real  souls. 

Facts  are  often  misinterpreted,  and  misinterpreted 
facts  are  rejected  by  many.  We  must  reject  the  mis- 
interpretation and  accept  the  facts. 

The  welfare  of  our  souls  is  the  mission,  or  rather 
the  ultimate  object  of  life  ;  for  what  shall  it  profit  a 
man  if  he  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul  ? 

How  shall  we  value  souls  ? 

The  v/orth  of  a  man  does  not  consist  in  his  titles. 


THE  SOUL.  43 

not  in  the  honors  he  receives  from  his  fellow-men,  not 
in  his  possessions,  not  in  his  knowledge  nor  in  his  tal- 
ent, not  in  any  of  the  externalities  of  his  life,  but  in 
his  soul ;  and  the  soul  of  the  poorest  servant  is  not  less 
than  the  soul  of  the  wealthiest  man,  the  most  learned 
savant,  or  the  most  powerful  monarch.  Indeed,  the 
soul  in  the  bosom  of  the  serf  that  is  of  the  sterling 
quality  of  an  Epictetus  is,  without  qualification,  supe- 
rior to  the  soul  of  a  Nero,  in  spite  of  the  dazzling 
talents,  which  made  this  imperial  monster,  in  the  be- 
ginning of  his  reign,  appear  as  a  genius  on  the  throne. 

We  do  not  say  that  worldly  possessions  are  worth- 
less, nor  do  v/e  consider  knowledge  and  talents  as  an 
indifferent  adjunct ;  on  the  contrary,  all  the  gifts  and 
blessings  of  life  possess  their  values,  for  they  are  in- 
strumental, and  almost  all  of  them  are,  in  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  indispensable  for  the  furthering  and 
quickening  of  the  life  of  the  soul. 

Yet  the  worth  of  a  soul  depends  first  of  all  upon 
the  moral  stamina  of  a  man's  character,  and  the  no- 
biiity  of  the  sentiments  that  dominate  his  being. 


IMMORTALITY. 


IMMORTALITY. 

Is  the  life  of  our  soul  limited  ? 

Every  personality  consists  of  a  definite  idiosyncracy, 
of  impulses,  dispositions  and  motor-ideas,  the  pecu- 
liarity and  relative  strength  of  which  admit  of  innume- 
rable variations.  Now  the  question  arises.  Whence 
do  the  constituent  elements  of  a  man's  soul  come,  what 
is  the  part  they  play,  and  whither  do  they  go  ? 

Our  soul  is  partly  inherited  from  our  ancestors, 
(our  dispositions,)  partly  planted  in  us  by  education, 
(in  the  main  our  ideas,)  partly  acquired  by  imitation, 
(our  habits,)  partly  formed  under  the  impression  of  our 
own  individual  experience,  (in  the  main  our  convic- 
tions,) and  partly  worked  out  through  reflection,  (in 
the  main  our  theories).  Thought,  i.  e.,  the  interaction 
that  takes  place  among  the  elements  of  the  soul,  enables 
us  to  make  new  thought-combinations  out  of  the  stock 
of  ideas  that  live  in  our  mind.  Thought  renders  the 
anticipation  of  future  facts  possible. 

Our  soul,  accordingly,  has  a  long  history,  which 
neither  begins  with  our  birth,  nor  ends  with  our  death. 
We  existed  wherever  the  ideas  of  which  we  consist 
were  thought,  and  shall  exist  wherever  they  are  thought 


48  IMMORTALITY. 

again ;  for  not  only  our  body  is  our  self,  but  mainly  our 
ideas.     Our  true  self  is  of  a  spiritual  nature. 

Our  life  is  only  a  phase  in  the  evolution  of  a  greater 
whole,  and  the  spiritual  existence  of  ourselves,  our 
soul,  is  a  precious  inheritance  of  the  past,  which  will 
evolve  in  future  generations  to  higher  and  ever  higher 
planes  of  being  and  to  nobler  and  ever  nobler  desti- 
nies. 

I. 
*  * 

The  preservation  of  soul-life  after  the  death  of  the 
individual  is  not  an  assumption,  nor  a  probability, 
nor  a  mere  hypothesis,  but  a  scientific  truth  which 
can  be  proved  by  the  surest  facts  of  experience.  If 
soul-life  were  not  preserved,  evolution  would  be  im- 
possible. Evolution  is  possible  only  because  the  souls 
of  our  ancestors  continue  to  live  in  us.  The  soul  of 
every  individual  is  a  peculiar  idiosyncrasy  of  his  an- 
cestors, and  of  the  education  received  from  parents 
and  teachers.  During  his  life  he  adds  his  own  ex- 
periences, good  or  bad,  and  when  he  dies  his  soul  is 
gathered  to  his  fathers,  and  together  with  their  souls 
it  floats  on  in  the  great  stream  of  immortality 

The  continuance  of  our  soul-life  beyond  death  has 
been  expressed  in  man}^  different  ways.  In  the  myste- 
ries of  Eleusis  it  was  allegorically  represented  by  a 
torch  which  went  from  hand  to  hand  and  by  ears  of 
wheat  that  symbolised  the  reappearance  of  vegetation 
after  its  wintery  sleep  ;  while  Christianity  expresses  it 
in  the  dogma  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 


IMMOR  TALIT  V.  49 

Among  Benjamin  Franklin's  manuscripts  was  found 
an  epitaph  which  he  had  written  in  1728,  when  he  was 
twenty-three  years  of  age.  The  many  corrections 
found  on  the  page  were  added,  as  we  may  fairly  sup- 
pose, in  later  years,  and  show  that  Franklin  had  pon- 
dered on  the  subject,  and  that  he  had  given  much 
thought  to  it.      The  epitaph*  runs  as  follows  : 

' '  The  Body 

of 

Benjamin  Franklin 

Printer 

(Like  the  cover  of  an  old  book 

Its  contents  torn  out 

And  stript  of  its  lettering  and  gilding) 

Lies  here  food  for  worms. 

But  the  work  shall  not  be  lost 

For  it  will  [as  he  believed]  appear  once  more 

In  a  new  and  more  elegant  edition 

Revised  and  corrected 

by 

The  Author." 

The  simile  that  compares  man  to  a  book  is  very 
expressive,  as  it  sets  the  nature  of  the  soul  in  a  true 
light.     We  are  inclined  to  regard  the  binding,  the  pa- 

*  We  may  add  that  Franklin  did  not  make  use  of  this  proposed  epitaph. 
He  directed  in  his  last  will  to  have  a  simple  stone  with  nothing  on  it  but  the 
names  of  himself  and  his  wife.     The  passage  in  the  testament  reads  thus  : 

"  I  wish  to  be  buried  by  the  side  of  my  wife,  if  it  may  be,  and  that  a  mar- 
ble stone,  to  be  made  by  Chambers,  six  feet  long,  four  feet  wide,  plain,  with 
only  a  small  moulding  round  the  upper  edge,  and  this  inscription : 
Benjamin 


Benjamin  ) 

AND       >-  Franklin. 
Deborah  )  178- 


be  placed  over  us  both." 


50  IMMOR  TA  LIT  V. 

per,  the  presswork  as  the  essential  elements  of  the 
book;  yet  we  must  be  aware  that  they  are  not  its  soul. 
The  soul  of  the  book  is  its  contents.  That  All- 
being,  in  whom  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being, 
publishes  one  edition  after  the  other,  and  when  one 
copy  is  destroyed,  the  book  itself,  i.  e.,  the  soul  of  the 
book,  is  not  lost.  If  but  the  contents  of  the  book  are 
valuable,  if  they  contain  truth,  it  will  reappear  in  a 
new  edition,  perhaps  in  a  more  elegant  binding,  but 
certainly  revised  and  corrected  and  enlarged. 

What  are  the  contents  of  the  soul  ? 

The  contents  of  the  soul  form,  in  a  word,  a  world- 
picture,  the  most  important  part  of  which,  for  human 
beings,  is  the  relations  that  obtain  and  that  ought  to 
obtain  in  human  society. 

The  world-picture  of  the  soul,  however,  is  not  a 
mere  image  of  our  surroundings  painted  in  glowing 
sensations.  Man  forms  a  systematic  conception  of  the 
facts  of  nature  so  as  to  behold  the  laws  of  their  being. 

The  world  of  which  we  are  parts  is  permeated  by 
law.  All  events  are  concatenated  and  interrelated  by 
causation,  and  every  act  of  ours  has  its  definite  con- 
sequences. Through  a  long  process  of  evolution  we 
have  come  to  be  what  we  are.  Our  surroundings  have 
impressed  themselves  upon  our  sentiency  and  have 
moulded  all  our  ideas  and  the  motives  that  prompt  us 
to  act.  Our  ideas  and  motives  are  the  quintessence  of 
our  being  ;  they  are  our  veriest  self,  our  soul.      If  and 


IMMORTALITY.  51 

in  so  far  as  our  ideas  are  true  and  our  motives  right, 
they  are  the  highest  and  best  and  most  precious  part 
of  our  existence,  they  are  the  divinity  of  our  being, 
they  are  the  incarnation  of  God  in  us,  they  are  the 
soul  of  our  soul. 

Is  there  a  prototype  of  the  soul  ? 

Rational  beings  here  upon  earth  might,  in  many  re- 
spects, have  developed  otherwise  than  they  did.  It  is 
not  impossible  that  rational  creatures  on  various  other 
planets  are  in  possession  of  different  physical  constitu- 
tions than  we.  They  may  have  developed  wings;  they 
may  have  tongs-like  organs  unlike  our  hands  for  taking 
hold  of  things,  etc.,  etc.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  they 
cannot  develop  another  kind  of  reason.  Their  arith- 
metic, their  mathematics,  their  logic  must  be  the  same 
as  ours.  Nay,  more  than  this,  the  basic  maxims  of  their 
ethics  cannot  be  essentially  different  from  those  which 
are  the  factors  underlying  the  growth  and  evolution  of 
human  society  upon  earth.  In  other  words  :  The  con- 
stitution of  the  universe  is  such  that  certain  features  of 
man's  soul  are  necessarily  such  as  they  are  and  cannot 
be  different  in  any  other  kind  of  rational  beings.  There 
are  not  prototypes  of  beings,  as  Plato  maintained,  but 
there  is,  nevertheless,  something  analogous  to  proto- 
types. The  nature  of  rational  beings  is  foreordained 
and  conditioned  by  the  very  nature  of  things,  and  thus 
the  biblical  saying  appears  in  a  new  light,  that  man 
has  been  created  in  the  image  of  God. 


52  IMMORTALITY. 

The  eternal  in  nature,  the  universal  in  the  changes 
of  the  world,  the  law  that  pervades  facts,  has  taken 
its  abode  in  man;  briefly,  it  is  the  truth  which  appears 
in  his  soul,  and  the  truth  is  a  correct  representation 
of  reality,  it  is  a  picture  of  God. 

Religious  truth  is  not  merely  a  scientific  cognition 
of  the  parts  of  the  world  and  a  comprehension  of  all 
the  details  of  natural  laws  ;  it  is  a  comprehension  of 
our  being  in  its  relation  to  the  whole,  to  God.  And  this 
comprehension  must  not  be  theoretical,  it  must  per- 
meate all  our  sentiments,  it  must  dominate  our  entire 
being  and  find  expression  in  all  the  acts  of  our  life. 

Why  is  the  scientific  view  of  the  soul  not  readily 
accepted  ? 

There  is  one  great  difficulty  in  this  theory  of  the 
soul,  of  its  divinity  and  of  its  immortality,  as  the  re- 
ligion of  science  propounds  it.  There  is  no  difficulty 
about  its  truth.  We  can  readily  see  that  it  is  undeni- 
able ;  it  can  be  positively  proved.  The  facts  upon 
which  it  rests  are  beyond  dispute.  But  the  difficulty 
is  of  another  nature.  We  have  great  trouble,  not  so 
much  in  understanding,  but  in  feeling  that  our  soul  is 
not  our  individual  self,  but  God  in  us. 

We  are  so  engrossed  with  materialism  that  we  look 
upon  the  externalities  of  life  as  our  real  self,  and  this 
materialism  finds  expression  in  the  forms  of  tradi- 
tional religions  now.  The  binding,  paper,  and  general 
appearance  of  a  book  is  in  the  sight  of  most  people  that 


IMMOR  TALIT  V.  53 

which  constitutes  its  essential  and  entire  being.  Man 
finds  it  very  hard  to  rise  in  his  emotional  life  to  that 
purity  of  abstraction  which  distinguishes  between  the 
contents  or  soul,  and  the  present  make-up  or  body,  of 
a  book,  of  a  man,  of  ourselves. 

The  question  of  immortality  is  a  moral  question. 
It  requires  a  man  of  moral  fibre  to  see  the  solution  in 
its  right  light.  It  is  not  enough  to  understand  the  prob- 
lem ;  we  must  live  it.  Our  natural  habits  still  tend  to  re- 
gard the  unessential  of  our  bodily  existence  as  our  real 
self,  and  all  our  emotions,  our  hopes  and  fears  are  ex- 
clusively attached  to  this  present  copy  of  our  soul. 

We  have  not  only  to  change  the  mode  of  our  think- 
ing, but  also  the  mode  of  our  feeling.  We  must  de- 
velop the  higher  emotions,  which  are  in  sympathy  with 
the  true  essence  of  our  being.  We  must  unlearn  the 
errors  that  make  us  lay  too  much  stress  upon  incidents 
that  have  only  a  passing  value,  and  we  must  regulate 
our  actions  from  the  standpoint  of  our  spiritual  nature. 
We  must  feel  ourselves  to  be  not  the  make-up  of  the 
present  edition  of  our  soul,  but  the  soul  itself. 

What  is  the  natural  standpoint  of  the  unreflecting 
man? 

That  attitude  of  a  man  in  which,  heedless  of  his 
soul,  he  takes  his  present  m.ake-up  as  his  true  self  is 
called  egotism  ;  and  the  man  with  egotistic  tendencies 
views  the  world  from  a  standpoint  which  does  not 
show  matters  in  a  correct  perspective. 


54 


IMMORTALITY. 


The  whole  world  and  his  own  self  are  pictured  to 
the  egotist  in  distorted  proportions.  All  his  feelings,  his 
sympathies,  and  antipathies,  too,   become  perverted. 

Why  must  we  abandon  the  standpoint  of  egotism  ? 

It  is  apparent  that  all  the  purposes  of  a  man  which 
are  designed  to  serve  his  egotistic  desires  only,  will  be 
vain,  and  if  he  were  ever  so  successful  in  his  efforts, 
death  will  step  in  at  last  and  annihilate  the  very  pur- 
pose for  which  he  lived. 

Nature  does  not  want  egotism.  She  suffers  it  with 
forbearance,  leaving  a  man  time  to  find  the  narrow 
road  to  life,  but  then  she  cuts  him  down  and  selects 
from  the  harvest  which  he  had  gathered  in  for  himself 
that  which  she  can  use  for  the  progress  of  mankind, 
leaving  him  only  the  bitter  knowledge  that  the  fruits 
of  his  work  are  taken  from  him  and  that  he  has  sowed 
what  another  shall  reap. 

Unless  a  man's  entire  emotional  life  be  centred  in 
his  soul,  his  life  will  be  a  failure. 

Is  the  abandonment  of  the  egoistic  standpoint  a 
resignation  ? 

This  view  of  the  soul  appears  to  those  who  still 
cling  to  the  conception  of  an  ego-soul  as  a  resignation  ; 
and  in  a  certain  sense  it  is  a  resignation.  We  have  to 
give  up  the  idea  that  our  real  self  belongs  to  ourselves. 
Our  soul  is  not  our  own,  but  mankind's  ;  and  man- 
kind in  its  turn  is  not  its  own  ;  the  soul  of  mankind  is 


IMMORTALITY 


55 


from  God,  it  develops  in  God,  and  all  its  aspirations 
and  yearnings  are  to  God. 

Yet  the  characterisation  of  this  view  of  the  soul  as 
a  resignation  will  produce  an  erroneous  impression. 
There  is  as  little  resignation  about  it  as  when  in  a 
fairy-tale  a  shepherd-lad  finds  out  that  he  is  a  prince. 
The  resignation  consists  in  resigning  an  error  for  truth. 
What  we  regarded  as  our  self  is  not  our  self,  but  only 
a  fleeting  shadow,  and  our  true  self  is  much  greater 
than  we  thought  it  was.  The  shepherd-boy  in  the 
fairy-tale  might  with  the  same  reason  say  that  his  very 
existence  had  been  wiped  out,  as  some  psychologists 
speak  of  the  annihilation  of  the  soul,  when  only  the 
ego-conception  of  the  soul  is  surrendered. 

When  our  sphere  of  being  becomes  widened  we 
should  not  speak  of  annihilation,  and  when  we  grow 
beyond  that  which  at  first  blush  we  seem  to  be,  we 
should  not  represent  it  as  a  resignation. 

He  who  regards  this  view  of  the  soul  as  a  resigna- 
tion only  indicates  that  his  sympathies,  his  hopes  and 
fears  are  still  with  the  externalities  of  our  existence. 
The  moment  the  very  consciousness  of  our  selfhood  is 
transferred  into  our  soul-existence,  we  shall  cease  to 
feel  any  resignation  in  this  change  of  view. 

What  objection  is  made  to  the  abandonment  of  the 
ego-soul  ? 

The  objection  has  been  raised  that  there  is  neither 
satisfaction  nor  justice  in   the  idea  that  others  shall 


56  IMMORTALITY. 

reap  the  fruits  of  our  labors.  But  this  objection  has 
sense  only  from  the  standpoint  of  an  ego-conception 
of  the  soul.  The  truth  is  that  the  future  generations 
of  mankind  are  not  ''others";  they  are  we  ourselves. 
We  have  inherited  in  the  same  way  not  only  the  bless- 
ings of  former  generations,  but  their  very  being,  their 
souls  :  we  are  their  continuance. 

It  is  not  an  empty  phrase  to  say  that  the  former 
generations  of  mankind  are  still  alive  as  a  part  of  our- 
selves. For  suppose  that  the  soul-life  of  the  past  were 
entirely  annihilated  and  no  vestige  of  it  left,  would 
not  our  own  existence  at  once  sink  to  the  level  of  mere 
amoeboid  existence  ?  The  thought  of  this  will  convince 
us  how  truly  real  is  the  continuance  of  soul-life  after 
death  !  The  souls  of  our  beloved  are  always  with  us 
and  will  remain  among  us  until  the  end  of  the  world. 

What  does  the  new  conception  of  the  soul  imply? 

Our  spiritual  nature  imposes  duties  upon  us  ;  it 
teaches  us  to  regard  our  life  as  a  phase  only  of  a 
greater  and  a  more  complete  evolution,  and  commands 
us  to  rise  above  the  narrowness  of  our  transient  and 
limited  existence. 

As  soon  as  we  rise  above  the  pettiness  of  our  indi- 
vidual being,  the  boundaries  of  birth  and  death  van- 
ish, and  we  breathe  the  air  of  immortality.  But  this 
change  of  standpoint  is  of  great  consequence.  It  af- 
fects our  entire  existence  and  brings  about  a  radical 
change  of  our  world-conception.    It  is  like  a  new  birth 


IMMORTALITY.  57 

which  will  above  all  be  felt  in  our  conduct.  The  higher 
standpoint  of  immortality  introduces  a  new  principle 
which  will  almost  reverse  our  former  habits  and  intro- 
duce a  new  criterion  of  what  is  to  be  regarded  as  right 
or  wrong. 

The  moral  commandments  are  rules  of  action  which 
appear  as  a  matter  of  course  to  him  who  has  been 
born  again,  who  has  raised  himself  to  the  higher  plane 
of  soul-life,  and  whose  sentiments  and  expressions  of 
this  attitude  are  what  Christianity  calls  ^'love." 

The  moral  commandments  are  forced  upon  the 
egotist,  and  the  egotist  naturally  regards  them  as  im- 
positions. However,  he  whose  attitude  is  that  of  love, 
does  not  feel  in  this  way.  He  fulfils  the  comm.and- 
ments  of  his  own  free  will. 

Our  sympathies  must  be  the  sympathies  of  our 
better  self,  and  if  they  are,  our  course  of  action  will, 
without  any  interference  of  the  law,  lead  us  to  do  any- 
thing the  law  and  the  rules  of  equity  demand. 

There  is  no  resignation  in  truly  moral  conduct. 
Moral  conduct  should  be  the  expression  of  our  char- 
acter; it  should  flow  naturally  from  the  nature  of  our 
being. 

II. 

Immortality  is  the  most  important  of  all  religious 
topics,  and  it  appears  desirable  to  consider  the  most 
stringent  objections  that  can  be  made  against  it. 

Dr.  Robert  Lewins,*  a  radical  freethinker  of  Eng- 

*  See  Agnostic  Journal,  XXXIV,  No.  26,  and  The  Open  Court,  No.  360. 


58  IMMORTALITY. 

land,  arraigns  the  Religion  of  Science  for  its  accep- 
tance of  a  belief  in  God  and  in  Immortality,  saying  : 

"  The  assumption  is  utterly  untenable,  though  held  by  Kant, 
Voltaire,  Rousseau,  and  even,  though  more  obscurely,  by  Fred- 
erick the  Great  and  David  Hume,  whose  influence  on  the  litera- 
ture, history,  and  politics  of  their  age  was  so  conspicuous.  Spite 
of  his  vast  culture,  and  probably  as  its  consequence,  a  remnant 
of  chromatic  metaphysics  still  seems  to  cling  to  Dr.  Carus." 

'*This  chromatic  metaphysics  is,"  according  to 
Dr.  Lewins,  ''a  barrier  to  achromatic  reality,"  and  he 
demands  that  ^'all  forms  of  Spiritualism  or  Animism, 
including  Theism,  Demonism,  and  posthumous  human 
existence,  must  be  relegated  to  the  sphere  of  our  racial 
credulity  and  superstition." 

Now  we  agree  with  Dr.  Lewins  in  the  aspiration  of 
having  reality  as  achromatic  as  possible,  but  declare 
at  the  same  time  that  a  flat  denial  of  ^'posthumous 
human  existence "  is  an  error.  The  continuance  of 
man's  soul  as  described  in  the  Religion  of  Science  is 
not  a  coloring  of  facts,  it  is  not  chromatic,  it  is  not  a 
distortion  of  truth,  but  it  is  an  exact  statement  of  the 
conditions  of  life  as  they  are  in  reality. 

Some  time  ago  the  following  two  questions  con- 
cerning immortality  were  put  to  me  : 

"  Do  you  believe  in  the  survival  of  man  as  a  distinct  individu- 
ality after  bodily  dissolution  ? 

"Do  you  believe  that  man  after  such  bodily  dissolution,  can, 
as  a  distinct,  conscious,  intelligent  being  communicate  with  those 
who  still  live  in  the  flesh  ?" 


IMMORTALITY.  59 

My  reply  was  this  : 

"  In  answer  to  the  first  question  I  should  say  :  I  understand  by 
individuality  not  only  man's  soul,  viz.,  his  sensations,  thoughts,  and 
ideals,  but  his  entire  existence,  including  his  bones,  muscles,  sin- 
ews, and  all  the  material  particles  of  which  at  a  given  time  his 
body  consists.  Accordingly,  I  believe  in  the  final  dissolution  of 
his  individuality,  and  count  it  no  loss  ;  but  I  believe  at  the  same 
time  in  the  survival  of  the  most  essential  part  of  man's  individu- 
ality, I  believe  in  the  survival  of  man's  soul. 

'  'To  the  second  question  I  should  answer:  Not  only  do  the  souls 
of  our  dead  continue  to  communicate  with  those  who  still  live  in 
the  flesh,  but  they  are  present  in  their  minds,  and  they  will  form 
parts  of  the  souls  of  the  generations  to  come.  The  relation  be- 
tween the  dead  and  the  living  is  too  intimate  to  be  called  a  com- 
munication. The  souls  of  the  dead  form  an  ever-living  presence 
in  the  souls  of  the  living.  Progress  and  evolution  to  higher  stages 
is  only  possible  because  the  souls  of  former  generations  continue 
to  live.  If  the  souls  of  our  ancestors  were  not  with  us  and  in  us, 
what  a  wretched,  and,  indeed,  merely  amoeboid  existence  would  we 
lead." 

There  is  not  an  iota  of  metaphysicism  or  animism 
left  in  this  view  of  immortality.  But  perhaps  my  critic 
will  say  that  this  is  no  immortality ;  that  this  is  a 
proposition  which  teaches  the  final  annihilation  of 
man's  personality  in  death.  If  he  does,  he  is  blind  to 
facts  and  fails  to  recognise  the  importance  of  that 
which  survives  of  us,  which  is  not  a  mere  trace  of  us, 
but  the  essence  of  our  personality,  our  very  soul,  the 
substance  and  worth  of  our  being. 

In  one  sense,  transiency  is  the  order  of  the  uni- 
verse,  in  another  sense,   permanency.     The  present 


6o  IMMORTALITY. 

changes  into  the  past,  never  to  be  the  present  again ; 
it  passes  away.     Every  happening  in    the   physical 
world  takes  place  never  to  happen  again  in  exactly 
the  same  way  and  under  the  very  same  circumstances. 
But  being  embodied  in  the  past,  it  remains  an  actual 
part  of  the  constitution  of  the  world.     It  has  become 
a  factor  for  all  the  future,  and  will  be  a  determinant 
of  any  possible  present  to  come.     In  the  same  way 
every  act  of  ours  passes  away,  yet  it  is  immortaHsed  : 
it  remains  an  indelible  reality  of  our  life,  influencing 
and  shaping  our  fate.      Every  thought  of  ours  once 
thought  and  buried  in  the  past  of  former  years  is,  in  a 
certain  sense,  gone  forever,  but  in   another  sense,  it 
remains  an  everpresent  reality,  and  our  soul  is  a  grand 
structure  consisting  of  the  immortalised  precipitate  of 
the  sentiments,  ideas,  and   acts  done  in  past  years, 
dating  back  to  the  beginning  of  souMife  upon  earth. 
What  is  true  of  all  events  in  the  physical  world 
and  of  the  facts  of  our  psychical  existence,  is  true  also 
of  whole  human  lives.     Nothing  is  lost  in  this  world, 
least  of  all   a  human  soul.     To  be  gathered  to  our 
fathers  does  not  mean  to  be  buried  in  the  ground,  but 
to  be  embodied  as  a  living  element  into  the  evergrov/- 
ing  organism  of  mankind.    There  we  are  preserved  as 
a  living  presence  with  all  our  peculiarities  and  with 
the  entire  personality  of  our  being.     Death  is  a  disso- 
lution of  our  body;  it  is  the  end  of  our  career;  it  is 
the  discontinuance  of  our  activity  in  this  individuality 
of  ours.     Yet  is  it  no  annihilation  of  our  thoughts,  of 


IMMORTALITY.  6i 

our  soul,  of  our  spiritual  existence,  of  ourselves.  Deeds 
live  on ;  and  what  are  we  but  the  summation  of  our 
deeds!  Our  deeds,  that  is  to  say,  we  ourselves,  continue 
after  death  as  much  as  the  memory  of  a  useful  knowl- 
edge which  we  have  learned  in  the  days  of  our  youth 
remains  an  essential  part  of  us  throughout  life. 

Thus  we  may  lament  the  premature  cutting  off  of 
a  valuable  life  by  death,  but  we  cannot  complain  about 
the  annihilation  of  a  man's  soul ;  for  it  continues,  it  is 
here  with  us  and  in  us.  We  might  as  well  complain 
of  the  transiency  of  our  school-years,  forgetful  of  the 
fact  that  both  the  knowledge  we  have  acquired  and 
the  fond  recollections  of  dear  friends  are  permanent. 

The  past  lives  on  in  the  present  and  the  dead  con- 
tinue in  the  living.  Every  soul  is  and  remains  for  ever 
a  citizen  of  that  invisible  empire  of  spiritual  existence 
which  is  always  coming,  always  near  at  hand,  and  al- 
ways developing  and  growing.  This  empire  of  spiritual 
life  is  not  a  phantom  but  an  actuality.  If  anything  is 
real,  it  is  real.  It  is  the  kingdom  of  God  of  which 
Jesus  said  that  it  is  within  us. 

Now,  in  the  face  of  facts  and  in  the  face  of  the  im- 
portant part  which  the  continuance  of  the  soul  plays 
in  our  life,  shall  we  at  the  funeral  of  our  dead  step 
forward  and  preach  the  annihilation  of  their  existence? 
Shall  we  say  at  the  open  grave  of  a  friend  that  the  be- 
lief in  immortality  is  a  remnant  of  metaphysics  and 
animism  to  be  relegated  to  the  sphere  of  superstition? 
No  !     Spiritual  facts  are  not  less  real  than  rocks  and 


62  IMMORTALITY. 

trees.  Immortality  is  a  truth  as  much  as  the  existence 
of  man's  soul ;  and  a  denial  of  it  will  warp  our  entire 
world-conception. 

As  it  is  difficult  for  the  uneducated  mass  of  man- 
kind to  recognise  the  reality  of  the  truth  of  immortality 
and  to  appreciate  its  paramount  importance,  the  various 
religions  have  taught  it  in  allegories  which  in  Chris- 
tianity have  been  crystallised  into  the  dogma  of  resur- 
rection. The  doctrine  of  resurrection  is  a  parable,  and 
the  parable  contains  allegorical  expressions  which  are 
crude  and  inappropriate  ;  but  the  idea  contained  in  it 
is  a  truth.  Science  rejects  the  assumption  of  a  ghost- 
soul  and  also  of  a  ghost-immortality,  but  science  estab- 
lishes at  the  same  time  the  reality  of  the  continuance 
of  man's  soul  after  death. 

The  immortality  of  the  soul  as  taught  by  the  ReH- 
gion  of  Science  is  as  complete  and  full  as  any  faithful 
Christian  can  reasonably  expect.  It  is  as  real  as  the 
continuance  of  our  self  which  we  daily  experience.  It 
is  not  of  less  value,  but  of  more  value  than  the  ghost- 
immortality  of  an  impossible  dualism  ;  it  is  not  ghastly, 
not  grotesque,  not  absurd  (as  Dr.  Lewins  says),  but 
noble,  elevating,  and  comforting. 

The  immortality  of  the  soul,  such  as  the  Religion 
of  Science  proposes,  is  right  here  in  this  actual  world 
of  ours,  not  in  a  celestial  Utopia ;  it  is  real  and  not  il- 
lusory ;  it  is  a  fact  and  not  a  dream  ;  it  is  an  undeni- 
able truth  and  not,  as  Voltaire,  Frederick  the  Great, 
and  his  friends  thought,  a  grand  pent  ctre. 


MYTHOLOGY  AND  RELIGION. 


MYTHOLOGY  AND  RELIGION. 

What  is  the  attitude  of  the  religion  of  science  to- 
wards other  religions  ? 

The  religion  of  science  is  not  hostile  to  the  spirit 
of  the  traditional  rehgions  :  on  the  contrary,  being  their 
matured  product,  it  regards  them  as  harbingers  that 
prepare  the  way. 

The  dogmatic  religions  are  mythologies  which  at- 
tempt to  teach  the  truth  in  parable  and  allegory.  They 
are  prophecies  of  the  religion  of  truth. 

Is  mythology  injurious? 

Mythology  in  itself  is  not  injurious  ;  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  a  necessary  stage  in  the  evolution  not  only 
of  religion,  but  also  of  science.  Man's  mode  of  con- 
veying thought  is  essentially  mythological.  All  lan- 
guage is  based  upon  similes  and  v/e  shall  perhaps  never 
be  able  to  speak  without  using  figures  of  speech. 

The  religion  of  science  does  not  come  to  destroy 
the  mythologies  of  old  religion  ;  it  does  not  come  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfil. 

What  is  the  nature  of  the  mythology  of  science  ? 

Science  no  less  than  religion  had  to  pass  and,  in 
many  of  its  fields,  is  still  passing,  through  a  mytholog- 


66  MYTHOLOG  Y  AND  RELIGIO N, 

ical  period ;  and  this  mythological  period  is  often 
marked  by  fantastic  notions  and  extravagant  vagaries. 
Astrology  preceded  astronomy,  and  alchemy  preceded 
chemistry. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  of  the  chemist  to  look  down 
upon  the  alchemist,  and  of  the  astronomer  to  speak 
with  contempt  of  the  astrologer  of  former  ages.  It  is 
a  sign  either  of  narrowness  or  of  a  lack  of  information 
to  revile  our  ancestors  because  they  knew  less  than  we. 
Baron  Liebig  was  the  greatest  chemist  of  his  times ; 
yet  he  speaks  with  profound  respect  of  the  aspirations 
and  accomplishments  of  the  alchemists.  Those  upon 
whose  shoulders  we  stand  deserve  our  thanks  not  our 
contempt.  Let  us  not  despise  the  anthropoid  from 
whose  labors  man  has  risen  to  the  height  of  a  human 
existence  ! 

The  mythology  of  science  still  cHngs  to  us  to-day. 

When  does  mythology  become  injurious? 

Mythology  becomes  injurious  as  soon  as  it  is  taken 
as  the  truth  itself. 

Mythology  thus  produces  that  self-sufficient  spirit 
of  dogmatism  which  prevents  further  inquiry  into  truth. 

What  is  the  origin  of  the  mythological  religions  ? 

The  historical  religions  were  founded  at  a  time  when 
science  and  its  methods  of  inquiry  did  not  as  yet  exist. 
Yet  religion  was  wanted.  People  cannot  live  without 
spiritual  support  and  solace  and  guidance.   And  as  the 


MYTHOLOGY  AND  RELIGION.  67 

old  Egyptians  instinctively  discovered  such  tools  as 
the  lever  and  other  simple  instruments  helpful  to  them 
in  their  work  long  before  they  understood  the  princi- 
ples of  these  contrivances  ;  as  mankind  in  general  in- 
stinctively invented  language  as  a  means  of  communi- 
cation without  having  any  philological  knowledge,  and 
even  without  the  least  inkling  of  the  laws  of  grammar 
and  logic  :  so  some  prophets  rose  among  our  ancestors 
preaching  to  them  some  simple  rules  of  conduct  which 
they  had  instinctively  found  when  pondering  on  the 
miseries  caused  by  criminal  and  ruthless  behavior. 

The  nobler  conduct,  preached  by  prophets  and  en- 
forced by  the  evil  consequences  of  sin,  raised  man- 
kind to  a  higher  ground.  Men  learned  to  feel  and 
appreciate  the  truth  of  the  religious  authority  which 
proclaims  the  moral  commands ;  and  the  religious 
convictions  thus  established  proved  even  in  their  im- 
perfect form  an  invaluable  source  of  solace  and  help 
in  the  tribulations  of  life. 

Does  the  law  of  evolution  apply  to   religion  also  ? 

Religion  develops  according  to  natural  laws.  Not 
only  the  human  body  and  all  living  creatures,  but  also 
such  intangible  and  spiritual  entities  as  science,  law, 
language,  and  social  institutions  are  products  of  evo- 
lution, and  religion  forms  no  exception. 

The  hypotheses  of  science  are  often  formulated 
with  the  help  of  analogies,  and  these  analogies  contain 
figurative  expressions.   We  speak  for  instance  of  elec- 


68  MYTHO LOGY  A ND  REL IGION: 

trie  currents,  as  if  electricity  were  a  fluid.  This  method 
of  using  analogies  which  is  of  great  service  in  scientific 
investigations  must  not  be  taken  as  real  science  :  it  is 
the  mythology  of  science. 

The  mythology  of  science  is  no  less  indispensable 
in  the  realm  of  investigation  than  it  is  in  the  province 
of  religion  ;  but  we  must  not  forget  that  it  is  a  means 
only  to  an  end,  the  ideal  of  scientific  inquiry  being  and 
remaining  a  simple  statement  of  facts. 

While  we  may  be  able  to  free  ourselves  from  the 
shackels  of  m.5^thology  in  science  and  philosophy,  must 
we,  perhaps,  still  retain  them  in  religion  ? 

The  progress  of  religion  in  this  direction  will  be  the 
same  as  in  science  and  philosophy. 

Progress  of  science  means  the  formation  of  new 
ideas,  and  the  purification  of  our  old  ones.  The  myth- 
ological elements  must  be  separated  from  the  pure 
statement  of  facts,  the  latter  being  the  grain,  the  for- 
m.er  the  chaff ;  the  latter  are  the  truth,  the  former  our 
mythologies,  being  the  methods  of  reaching  the  truth. 

The  chaff  is  the  husks,  and  grain  cannot  grow  with- 
out the  wholesome  protection  of  the  husks.  The  truth 
contained  in  mythological  allegories  is  their  all-im- 
portant element,  which  has  to  be  sifted  out  and  pre- 
served. The  rest  is  to  be  discarded  ;  it  has  served  an 
educational  purpose  and  will  have  to  be  relegated  to 
the  history  of  science. 

Religious  progress,  no  less  than  scientific  progress, 


MYTHOLOGY  AND  RELIGION'.  69 

is  a  process  of  growth,  it  is  an  increment  of  truth,  and 
also  a  cleansing  from  mythology. 

Religion  is  a  world-conception  regulating  man's 
conduct.  Our  world-conception  grows  with  every  new 
information,  and  all  those  new  ideas  from  which  we 
derive  moral  rules  of  conduct  become  religious  ideas. 

As  science  began  with  the  crude  notions  of  primi- 
tive animism,  so  did  religion  begin  v/ith  a  mythology 
full  of  superstition.  And  the  ideal  of  religion  is  the 
same  as  that  of  science,  it  is  an  increase  of  truth  as 
well  as  a  liberation  from  mythological  elements.  The 
more  complete  our  knowledge  is,  the  less  is  our  need 
of  hypotheses,  and  mythological  expressions  can  be 
replaced  by  exact  statements  of  fact.  Both  science  and 
religion  are  to  be  based  upon  a  concise  but  exhaustive 
statement  of  facts,  v^hich  is  to  be  constantly  enlarged 
by  a  more  complete  and  more  accurate  experience. 

The  ultimate  goal  of  religious  development  is  the 
recognition  of  the  truth  with  the  aspiration  to  live  in 
conformity  to  the  truth. 

Mythology  which  is  conceived  to  be  the  truth  itself 
is  called  paganism. 

Paganism  is  the  notion  that  the  parable  is  the  mean- 
ing it  involves,  that  the  letter  is  the  spirit,  that  myth- 
ology is  the  truth. 

It  is  certainly  no  error  to  believe  that  virtue,  jus- 
tice, beauty,  love,  and  other  ideas  have  a  real  and  true 
existence  in  reality.  They  whose  spiritual  eyes  are 
too  dim  to  see  and  to  understand  their  being,  will  be 


70  MYTHOLOGY  AND  RELIGION-. 

greatly  benefited  by  the  representations  of  the  artist 
and  the  poet,  who  present  those  ideals  to  us,  the  latter 
in  our  imagination,  the  former  visibly  in  marble  as  per- 
sonal beings,  as  gods.  There  is  no  wrong  in  similes, 
there  is  no  fault  to  be  found  with  parables.  But  he 
who  believes  that  these  gods  are  personal  beings,  he 
who  takes  the  mythology  to  be  the  actual  truth,  is 
under  the  spell  of  a  gross  misconception,  and  this  mis- 
conception is  paganism. 

Paganism  leads  to  idolatry.  He  who  worships  the 
symbol  is  an  idolater. 

The  dogmatic  religions  of  to-day  are  still  under  the 
spell  of  paganism  ;  and  even  Christianity,  the  highest, 
the  noblest,  and  most  humane  of  all  religions,  is  not 
yet  free  of  idolatry, — a  fact  which  appears  in  many 
various  customs  and  ceremonies.  Sacrifices  have  been 
abandoned,  but  prayer,  adoration,  and  other  institu- 
tions still  indicate  the  pagan  notion  that  God  is  like  a 
human  being,  that  he  takes  dehght  in  receiving  honors, 
and  that  upon  special  considerations  he  will  change 
his  decrees  and  reverse  the  order  of  nature  for  the  sake 
of  those  whom  he  loves. 

The  religion  of  science  does  away  with  paganism 
and  idolatry. 

The  religion  of  science  rejects  the  religion  of  adora- 
tion, and  prescribes  only  one  kind  of  worship — the 
worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth  which  consists  in  obeying 
the  authority  of  moral  conduct. 


MYTHOL OGY  AND  RELIGION.  7 1 

The  religion  of  science  rejects  all  the  vain  repeti- 
tions of  such  prayers  as  attempt  to  change  not  our  will 
but  the  will  of  God.  Those  prayers  only  are  admitted 
by  the  religion  of  science  which  set  our  souls  in  har- 
mony with  the  authority  of  conduct,  which  consists  in 
self-discipline  and  teach  us  to  say  with  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth '<■  Not  our,  but  Thy  will  be  done  !  " 

What  are  the  sources  of  religious  truth? 

The  religion  of  science  knows  of  no  special  revela- 
tions ;  it  recognises  only  the  revelation  of  truth,  open 
to  all  of  us,  as  it  appears  in  our  experience,  viz.,  in 
the  events  of  nature  surrounding  us,  and  also  in  the 
emotions  of  our  own  heart. 

Religion  is  not  due  to  a  supernatural  revelation, 
but  to  the  same  natural  revelation  to  which  science 
owes  its  existence. 

The  form  of  the  established  religions  is  mytholog- 
ical, for  its  founders  spoke  in  parables,  and  the  alle- 
gorical form  of  their  teachings  was  quite  adapted  to 
the  age  in  which  they  lived. 

New  problems  have  arisen  with  the  grov/th  of  sci- 
ence. The  mythology  of  our  religions  has  become 
palpably  untenable,  and  vve  are  no  longer  satisfied  with 
the  dogmas  extracted  from  parables. 

Is  there  any  conflict  between  religion  and  science? 

True  science  and  true  religion  can  never  come  in 
conflict.      If  there  is  any  conflict  between  religion  and 


72  MYTHOL OGY  A XD  REL IGION. 

science,  it  is  a  sign  that  there  is  something  wrong  in 
either  our  science  or  our  religion,  and  we  shall  do  well 
to  revise  them  both. 

This  is  the  conflict  that  at  present  obtains  between 
science  and  religion.  The  infidel  laughs  at  the  im- 
postures of  religion,  while  the  bigot  demands  an  im- 
plicit surrender  of  reason. 

The  infidel  as  well  as  the  bigot  are  under  the  er- 
roneous impression  that  the  mythology  of  religion  is 
religion  itself. 

What  is  to  be  done? 

The  bigot  demands  that  science  be  muzzled,  and 
the  infidel  proposes  to  eradicate  religion. 

Shall  we  follow  the  bigot  who  wants  the  errors  of 
paganism  to  continue  ?  Or  shall  we  follow  the  infidel? 
Shall  we  root  out  science,  because  it  is  not  as  yet  free 
from  mythology?  Shall  we  eradicate  mankind  because 
there  are  traces  of  barbarism  left  in  our  institutions, 
even  to-day?  Shall  we  abandon  religion  because  it 
still  retains  some  of  the  superstitious  notions  of  pa- 
ganism ? 

We  follow  neither  the  bigot  nor  the  infidel,  but 
propose  confidently  to  advance  on  the  road  of  pro- 
gress. It  is  the  course  prescribed  by  nature,  which 
willingly  or  unwillingly  we  shall  have  to  pursue. 

The  ideal  towards  which  every  religious  evolution 
tends,  is  to  develop  a  Religion  of  Truth.  And  this  ideal 
can  be  reached  only  through  an  honest  search  for  the 


MYTHOLOGY  AND  RELIGION.  73 

truth  with  the  assistance  of  the  scientific  methods  of 
inquiry. 

Christianity  possesses  an  ideal  which  is  called  '*the 
invisible  church."  Even  the  most  devout  Christians 
are  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  present  condition  of  the 
church  is  not  the  realisation  of  its  ideal.  The  ideal  of 
the  invisible  church  can  find  its  realisation  only  in  the 
religion  of  science. 


CHRIST  AND  THE  CHRISTIANS; 
A  CONTRAST. 


CHRIST  AND  THE  CHRISTIANS ;  A  CONTRAST. 

For  the  sake  of  convenience,  let  us  distinguish  be- 
tween Christ  and  Jesus.  While  the  name  Jesus  de- 
notes an  historical  man,  who,  as  we  have  good  reason 
to  believe,  lived  about  two  thousand  years  ago,  we 
understand  by  Christ  that  ideal  figure,  which  has  been 
the  main  factor  in  forming  the  Christian  church  and 
which  is  represented  in  the  gospels. 

Whether  Jesus  was  Christ,  in  other  words,  whether 
the  account  of  the  gospels  is  historical  or  mythical,  is 
a  problem  which  we  do  not  care  to  discuss  in  detail  here. 
The  problem  is  of  a  purely  scientific  nature  and  has 
nothing  to  do  with  practical  religion,  except  as  it  may 
open  the  eyes  of  those  who  are  as  yet  under  the  spell 
of  the  paganism  which  still  prevails  in  our  churches.* 
It  is  quite  immaterial  whether  or  not  the  accounts  of  the 


*  The  problem  of  Jesus  can  now  be  regarded  as  solved,  and  the  results  of 
all  the  laborious  researches  into  the  accounts  of  the  gospels  have  been 
summed  up  by  H.  Holtzmann,  Professor  of  Theology  at  the  University  of 
Strassburg  i.  E.,  in  his  Hand-Commentar  zutn  neuen  Testametit.  Professor 
Holtzmann's  works  are  the  more  valuable  as  they  are  the  statement,  not  of  a 
Freethinker,  but  of  a  Christian  and  a  theologian  by  profession.  They  are 
reverent,  but  scientific  and  critical. 

Holtzmann's  results  remain  positive.  Jesus  is,  in  his  opinion,  an  histori- 
cal person,  whose  human  character  and  fate  can  best  be  traced  in  Mark,  the 
oldest  of  the  gospels. 


78  CHRIST  AND   THE  CHRISTIANS, 

gospel  are  historical ;  yet  it  is  not  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence whether  or  not  the  Christ-ideal  is  true  ;  and  we 
say  that  it  is  true  ;  and  so  far  as  its  truth  has  been  rec- 
ognised, the  spirit  of  Christ  lives  and  moves  and  has 
its  being. 

The  belief  in  the  miraculous,  which  existed  at  the 
time  of  Christ,  quite  naturally  entered  into  the  gos- 
pels, and  we  cannot  regard  it  as  an  absolutely  injuri- 
ous element,  whose  presence  ought  to  be  deplored. 
On  the  contrary,  miracles  and  the  belief  in  miracles 
indicate  the  power  of  the  Christ-ideal.  All  great  his- 
torical movements  are  soon  surrounded  by  more  or 
less  beautiful  legends,  and  these  legends  frequently 
reflect  the  meaning  of  history  better  than  the  histori- 
cal facts  themselves,  for  the  legends  reveal  to  us,  in  a 
poetical  vision,  the  thriving  power  of  historical  move- 
ments. There  we  peep,  as  it  were,  into  the  minds  of 
mankind ;  we  see  their  yearning,  aspiring,  wondering, 
and  we  learn  their  conception  of  the  ideals  that  move 
in  their  hearts.  Christianity  would  have  been  insignifi- 
cant and  insipid,  if  it  had  not  produced  such  a  myth- 
ology as  we  possess  now.  There  is  no  fault  to  be  found 
with  the  mythology,  but  only  with  those  who  misun- 
derstand the  part  which  mythologies  play  in  the  evo- 
lution of  religious  ideas. 

We  have  to  accept  the  results  of  science  in  its  in- 
vestigation of  the  historical  pretensions  of  the  gos- 
pels, yet  at  the  same  time  we  insist  on  the  fact  that 
Christ  is  a  living  presence  even  to-day,  and  our  whole 


CHRIST  AND  THE  CHRISTIANS.  79 

civilisation  is  pervaded  by  his  spirit.  Christ  is  the 
key-note  of  the  historical  evolution  of  mankind  since 
the  second  century  of  the  Christian  era,  and  it  seems 
improbable  that  the  influence  of  this  ideal  will  ever 
subside,  or  that  its  glory  will  ever  be  outshone  by  a 
greater  star  to  come  ;  for  the  Christ-ideal  is  a  tendency, 
rather  than  a  type ;  it  indicates  the  direction  of  moral 
progress,  and  not  a  special  aim  ;  it  represents  an  as- 
piration towards  perfection,  and  not  a  fixed  standard. 
Thus,  with  all  moral  rigidity,  nay,  sternness,  with  all 
definiteness  and  stability,  the  Christ-ideal  combines 
an  extraordinary  plasticity ;  it  is  capable  of  evolution, 
of  expansion,  of  growth. 

Christ  is  an  invisible  and  superpersonal  influence 
in  human  society,  guiding  and  leading  mankind  to 
higher  aims  and  a  nobler  morality.  Christ  is  greater 
than  every  one  of  us,  and  we  are  Christians  in  the 
measure  that  his  soul  has  taken  its  abode  in  us. 

The  Christ  of  the  gospels,  however,  who  has  be- 
come the  religious  ideal  of  Christianity,  is  very  different 
from  the  Christ  of  the  Christians — or,  let  us  rather  say, 
of  those  who  call  themselves  Christians,  who  worship 
Christ  in  a  truly  pagan  manner.  Those  who  call  them- 
selves after  Christ  are,  upon  the  whole,  the  least  worthy 
of  the  name,  for,  if  he  came  unto  his  own,  his  own 
would  receive  him  not. 

The  so-called  faithful  Christians  have  made  them- 
selves a  religion  little  better  than  that  of  fetish  wor- 
shippers and  practice  in  many  respects  an  ethics  exactly 


8o  CHRIST  AND  THE  CHRISTIANS. 

opposite  to  the  injunctions  of  Christ.  Their  worship 
consists  in  adoration  and  genuflections  and  other  hea- 
thenish rituals,  but  they  violate  his  commands.  They 
believe  in  the  letter  of  mythological  traditions,  and 
fail  to  recognise  the  spirit  of  the  truth. 

Let  us  here  briefly  pass  in  review  some  important 
religious  issues  which  present  a  strong  contrast  be- 
tween Christ  and  the  so-called  Christians. 

Christ  is  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life,  but  those 
who  in  public  life  ostentatiously  set  themselves  up  as 
Christians  bar  the  way,  dim  the  truth,  and  impede  life. 
They  demand  a  blind  belief  in  confessions  of  faith  and 
other  man-made  formulas,  while  they  trample  under 
foot  any  one  who  dares  to  search  for  the  truth  or  walk 
in  the  way  of  progress. 

Christ  is  the  way,  which  means,  the  spirit  of  evolu- 
tion, of  a  constant  moral  perfectionment;  but  the  Chris- 
tians, in  name,  have  become  a  clog  on  the  feet  of  man- 
kind, so  that  they  are  known  as  the  chief  suppressors 
of  truth,  liberty,  and  progress. 

Says  Christ : 

"Well  hath  Esaias  prophesied  of  you  hypocrites  as  is  written, 
•  This  people  honoreth  me  with  their  lips,  but  their  heart  is  far 
from  me.' 

"  Howbeit  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men. 

"For  laying  aside  the  commandment  of  God,  ye  hold  the 
tradition  of  men  ! .  .  .  Full  well  ye  reject  the  commandment  of 
God  that  ye  may  keep  your  own  tradition." — Mark,  vii. 


CHRIST  AND  THE  CHRISTIANS.  8i 

Which  is  the  will  of  God  :  the  injunctions  preached 
by  preachers  and  priests,  or  the  everlasting  revelation 
in  the  book  of  nature  ?  The  former  we  have  to  accept 
on  trust ;  the  latter  every  one  can  find  out  for  himself 
by  experience.  The  former  are  inconsistent,  varying 
and  unreliable ;  the  latter  can  be  investigated  and  veri- 
fied. The  literatures  of  all  nations,  including  espe- 
cially the  scriptures  of  our  rehgious  traditions,  have 
been  written  in  order  to  assist  us  in  deciphering  the 
revelations  of  God  as  they  appear  in  the  immutable 
laws  of  nature.  Let  us  search  the  scriptures,  and  let 
us  study  the  works  of  our  scientists.  But  always  bear 
in  mind  that  truth  is  God's  revelation,  be  it  pronounced 
by  Isaiah  or  Darwin,  and  not  this  or  that  formula,  or 
holy  writ,  or  sacred  tradition,  and,  least  of  all,  a  qui- 
cunque. 

When  certain  of  the  Pharisees  said  to  the  disciples 
of  Jesus  :  <' Why  do  ye  that  which  is  not  lawful  to  do 
on  the  Sabbath  days?"  Jesus,  answering  them,  said  : 

' '  What  man  shall  there  be  among  you,  that  shall  have  one 
sheep,  and  if  it  fall  into  a  pit  on  the  Sabbath  day,  will  he  not  lay 
hold  on  it  and  lift  it  out  ? 

' '  How  much  then  is  a  man  better  than  a  sheep  ?  Wherefore 
it  is  lawful  to  do  well  on  the  Sabbath  days.  .  .  . 

' '  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sab- 
bath : 

"Therefore  the  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath." 

The  Christians  of  the  first  century  abolished  the 
Sabbath  and  introduced  Sunday  as  a  sacred  day;  and 
their  Sunday  was  not  a  day  of  rest,  but  a  remembrance 


82  CHRIST  AND  THE  CHRISTIANS. 

of  Christ's  resurrection.  The  Christians  of  our  time, 
however,  know  not  how  to  celebrate  the  day.  Although 
they  believe  literally  in  the  resurrection,  Christ  has 
not  risen  in  their  souls. 

The  name- Christians  revive  the  old  pagan  notion 
that  the  Sunday  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  dies  ater,  an 
ominous  day,  on  which  it  is  not  advisable  to  undertake 
anything.  The}^  make  of  man  the  slave  of  Sunday; 
they  close  places  of  harmless  pleasures  and  useful  in- 
formation, and  in  such  efforts  they  find  a  strong  sup- 
port by  men  of  evil  enterprises,  who  offer  to  the  people 
more  exciting  and  less  innocent  amusements.  Must 
Christ  come  again  to  repeat  the  question : 

"Is  it  lawful  on  the  Sabbath  days  to  do  good  or  to  do  evil  ? 
to  save  life  or  to  destroy  life  ?  ' ' 

Is  there  any  one  who  doubts  that  museums,  good 
theatres,*  and  libraries  furnish  recreations  which  exer- 
cise a  strong  influence  for  good  upon  the  development 
of  man's  mind?  They  provide  a  wholesome  mental 
food,  educating  without  the  toil  of  study  and  broaden- 
ing our  views.  They  are  not  idle  pleasures  ;  they  are 
building  up  and  life-saving  ;  they  are,  if  enjoyed  in  the 
right  spirit,  truly  religious,  and  Christ  teaches  that  it 
is  right  to  heal,  to  help,  and  to  save  on  the  Sabbath. 

Some  of  the  early  Christians  continued  to  celebrate 
the  Sabbath  after  the  Jewish  fashion,  and  the  apostle 
St.  Paul  suffered  them  to  do  so ;  yet  he  insisted  vigor- 

*I  say  ^'good  theatres"  on  purpose,  thinking  that  vulgar  show-pieces 
might  be  avoided  on  Sundays  as  well  as  on  week-days.  But  a  drama,  like 
Schiller's  "  Maria  Stuart,"  is  a  sermon  better  than  any  divine  can  preach. 


CHRIST  AND   THE  CHRISTIANS,  83 

ously  upon  liberty  in  such  matters.     We  read  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans  : 

"  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another  :  another  esteem- 
eth  every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own 
mind. 

"  He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  it  unto  the  Lord  ;  and 
he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord  he  doth  not  regard  it." 

In  his  letter  to  the  Galatians,  however,  who  piously 
abstained  from  the  desecration  of  the  Sabbath,  the 
apostle  writes  : 

"Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years. 
"  I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  I  have  bestowed  upon  you  labor  in 
vain." 

A  wrong  conception  of  the  Sabbath  is  an  indication 
of  paganism ;  and  wherever  paganism  prevails  the 
spirit  of  true  Christianity  bestows  its  labors  in  vain. 

Woe  to  ye  hypocrites,  who  make  religion  ridicu- 
lous! Woe  to  ye  Sabbatarians,  who  make  of  Christian- 
ity a  nuisance!  Ye  are  blind  leaders  of  the  blind,  a  dis- 
grace to  the  holy  name  which  you  write  upon  your  altars. 

We  do  not  mean  to  abolish  Sunday,  or  to  deprive 
the  laborer  of  his  rest  on  the  seventh  day.  On  the 
contrary,  we  insist  on  keeping  Sunday  as  a  religious 
and  also  as  a  secular  holiday.  But  we  object  to  a 
wrong  usage  of  Sunday,  as  if  it  were  the  Sabbath  of 
the  Pharisees.  We  protest  against  the  barbaric  regu- 
lations belonging  to  pre-Christian  ages  which  have 
been  given  up  by  all  Christian  nations  with  the  sole 
exception  of  the  English,  who,  in  the  beginning  of  the 


84  CHRIST  AND   THE  CHRISTIANS. 

middle  ages  dug  them  out  of  the  misunderstood  re- 
ligious traditions  of  a  remote  past. 

We  want  a  Sunday,  but  not  such  a  Pharisaic  Sab- 
bath as  is  foisted  upon  the  nation  by  modern  Phari- 
sees. We  want  a  day  of  rest,  of  recreation,  of  edifica- 
tion, and  not  that  superstitious /c^r  ?iiente,  which  means 
a  cessation  of  all  wholesome  activity.  We  want  a  lib- 
eral, a  religious,  a  spiritual,  and  truly  Christian  Sun- 
day. 

* 
*  * 

Christ  never  requested  his  disciples  to  eradicate 
reason,  or  to  believe  anything  irrational,  or  to  accept 
any  of  his  doctrines  in  blind  trust.  On  the  contrary, 
he  wanted  them  to  examine  things,  to  discriminate 
between  the  false  and  the  true,  and  to  discern  the 
signs  of  the  times.  Our  senses  should  be  open  to  in- 
vestigation, and  our  judgment  ought  to  be  sound  in 
order  to  comprehend  things.  He  that  hath  ears  to 
hear,  let  him  hear,  and  he  who  has  thoughts  to  think, 
let  him  think. 

How  different  are  Christians  !  Christians  demand 
blind  belief  j  they  do  not  want  investigation  ;  they 
have  a  distrust  of  sense  information  and  place  no  re- 
liance upon  reason. 

What  in  the  world  shall  we  rely  on,  if  reason  ceases 
to  be  trustworthy?  If  the  light  of  reason  be  extin- 
guished, all  our  sentiments,  our  enthusiasm,  our  aspi- 
rations, avail  nothing,  for  without  reason,  we  grope  in 
the  dark.      Says  Kant : 


CHRIST  AND   THE  CHRISTIANS.  85 

"Friends  of  mankind  and  of  all  that  is  holy  to  man,  accept 
whatever,  after  a  careful  and  honest  inquiry,  you  regard  to  be 
most  trustworthy,  be  it  facts  or  rational  arguments,  but  do  not 
contest  that  prerogative  of  reason,  which  makes  it  the  highest  good 
upon  earth,  viz.,  to  be  the  ultimate  criterion  of  truth.  Otherwise 
you  will  be  unworthy  of  your  liberty  and  lose  it  without  fail." 
(Kant,  "Was  heisst :  Sich  im  Denken  orientiren."  Edition  Har- 
tenstein,  Vol.  IV,  p.  352.) 


Christ  abolished  prayer  in  the  sense  of  begging 
God  to  do  our  will,  for  he  truly  knew  that  God,  unlike 
man,  is  immutable,  and  his  will  cannot  be  altered  by 
supplications. 

Christ  makes  no  supplications,  no  praise,  no  glori- 
fications of  God  ;  he  demands  no  genuflection  or  self- 
humiliation.  He  does  not  beg  for  miracles  or  excep- 
tions or  special  favors,  and  in  the  most  wretched  mo- 
ment of  his  life  he  remains  faithful  to  this  spirit,  which 
lives  in  his  prayer,  saying:  ''Not  my,  but  Thy  will 
be  done." 

Christ  said  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  : 

"When  ye  pray,  use  not  vain  repetitions,  as  the  heathen  do; 
for  they  think  they  shall  be  heard  for  their  much  speaking. 

"  Be  not  ye  therefore  like  unto  them  :  for  your  Father  knoweth 
what  things  ye  have  need  of,  before  ye  ask  him. 

"After  this  manner  therefore  pray  ye :  Our  Father  which  art 
in  heaven,  hallowed  be  thy  name. 

'•  Thy  kingdom  come.  Thy  will  be  done  in  earth,  as  it  is  in 
heaven. 

"  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread. 

"  And  forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our  debtors. 


86  CHRIST  AND   THE  CHRISTIANS. 

'*  And  lead  us  not  into  temptation,  but  deliver  us  from  evii.* 

"  For  if  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father 
will  also  forgive  you  : 

"  But  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your 
Father  forgive  your  trespasses." 

There  is  but  one  prayer  for  our  bodily  needs — not 
for  our  comforts,  merely  for  the  needs  which,  as  we 
must  not  forget,  nature  supplies  out  of  her  wealth  only 
when  we  work  for  them.  There  is  no  prayer  for  the 
fulfilment  of  our  particular  desires,  and  all  the  other 
requests  are  variations  of  the  third  prayer,  which  says, 
''Thy  will  be  done." 

The  name-Christians  actually  do  use  ''vain  repeti- 
tions," so  that  prayer  has  almost  ceased  to  have  the 
sense  in  which  Christ  used  the  word. 

While  recognising  the  error  that  obtains  in  the 
Christian's  habit  of  praying,  we  do  not  mean  to  dis- 
courage the  Christian  when  he  wants  to  pray,  for  prayer 
is  the  moving  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  in  the  souls  of  those 
who  know  not  what  Christ  is.  If  their  prayer  be  honest, 
it  will  help  them,  it  will  mature  them,  it  will  calm  their 
anxieties  and  make  them  composed,  it  will  strengthen 
them,  it  will  make  them  grow  and  develop  out  of  their 
paganism  into  the  Christianity  of  Christ.  The  more 
they  grow  in  their  spiritual  life,  the  more  will  they 
cease  to  prattle  to  God  in  childish  talk  ;  they  will  learn 
to  pray  like  Christ,  until  their  whole  being  becomes  a 
performance  of  God's  will. 

*The  words,  "For  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  power,  and  the  glory, 
forever.     Amen,"  are  a  later  addition, 


CHRIST  AND   THE   CHRISTIANS.  87 

Any  sincere  Christian  who  proposes  to  himself  the 
question,  What  shall  I  pray  ?  in  order  to  pray  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Lord's  prayer,  will  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  to  ask  for  special  favors  is  childish  as  well  as  use- 
less. 

Prayer  must  be  made  not  with  a  view  of  altering 
God's  will,  but  our  own  will.  We  grant,  however,  that 
in  a  certain  sense  it  is  true  after  all  that  prayer  has  an 
influence  upon  God.  Prayer  affects  our  attitude  to- 
ward God,  toward  the  world,  toward  our  fellow-men, 
and  in  so  far  as  our  attitude  is  altered,  the  attitude  of 
our  surroundings  will  be  altered,  too.  Whether  we 
are  impatient  and  afraid,  or  calm  and  self-possessed, 
makes  a  great  difference,  and  the  whole  situation  in 
which  we  are  may  change  when  we  pass  from  one  con- 
dition into  the  other.  The  facts  which  we  face,  the 
dangers  which  we  confront,  the  duties  which  we  have 
to  perform,  assume  another  countenance  ;  and  this 
change  may  and  very  frequently  will  be  the  most  de- 
cisive factor*  in  the  final  result  of  our  actions. 

Take,  for  instance,  our  knowledge  of  nature.  The 
laws  of  nature  have  remained  the  same  ;  but  while  the 
savage  trembles  before  the  forces  of  nature,  we  utilise 
them  to  our  advantage.  The  same  electricity  which 
was  so  formidable  to  our  ancestors  is  to  us  beneficent. 
Truly,  there  is  no  change  in  the  laws  of  nature,  but  a 
change  in  our  own  attitude  changes  the  situation  in 
such  a  way  that  it  amounts  to  a  most  radical  change  of 
nature  itself. 


88  CHRIST  AND   THE  CHRISTIANS. 

If  knowledge  can  bring  about  such  wonderful 
changes,  should  not  the  good-will  of  a  religious  atti- 
tude have  the  power  to  reform,  to  bless,  and  to  save  ? 

* 

Should  prayer  mean  supplication,  it  would  be  bet- 
ter that  all  prayer  ceased.  And,  indeed,  the  Lord's 
prayer  contains  the  injunction  that  we  must  cease  to 
ask  God  to  do  our  will. 

While  Christ's  prayer  is  an  act  of  self-discipline 
which  attunes  our  will  to  the  will  of  God,  the  Christian's 
prayer  is,  as  a  rule,  a  beggar's  supplication,  which  tries 
to  work  miracles.  The  Christian's  prayer  may  be  more 
refined,  but  it  is  actually  of  the  same  nature  as  the 
medicine-man's  incantation,  which  is  supposed  to  take 
effect  by  some  mysterious  telepathy. 

The  great  Konigsberger  philosopher  uses  the  word 
*' prayer,"  not  in  Christ's  sense,  but  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  used  by  the  name-Christians.     He  says : 

"To  expect  of  prayer  other  than  natural  effects  is  foolish  and 
needs  no  explicit  refutation.  We  can  only  ask,  Is  not  prayer  to  be 
retained  for  the  sake  of  its  natural  effects  ?  Among  the  natural 
effects  we  count  that  the  dark  and  confused  ideas  present  in  the 
soul  are  either  clarified  through  prayer,  or  that  they  receive  a 
higher  degree  of  intensity  ;  that  the  motives  of  virtue  receive  a 
greater  efficacy,  etc.,  etc, 

"We  have  to  say  that  prayer  can,  for  the  reasons  adduced, 
be  recommended  only  subjectively,  for  he  who  can  in  another  way 
attain  to  the  effects  for  which  prayer  is  recommended  will  not  be 
in  need  of  it. 

"A  m&n  may  think,  *If  I  pray  to  God  it  can  hurt  me  in  no 


CHRIST  AND   THE  CHRISTIANS.  89 

wise ;  for  should  he  not  exist,  very  well  !  in  that  case  I  have  done 
too  much  of  a  good  thing  ;  but  if  he  does  exist,  it  will  help  me. '  This 
Prosopopbia  (face-making)  is  hypocrisy,  for  we  have  to  presuppose 
in  prayer  that  he  who  prays  is  firmly  convinced  that  God  exists. 

"The  consequence  of  this  is  that  he  who  has  made  great 
moral  progress  ceases  to  pray,  for  honesty  is  one  of  his  principal 
maxims.  And  further,  that  those  whom  one  surprises  in  prayer 
are  ashamed  of  themselves. 

"In  public  sermons  before  the  public,  prayer  must  be  re- 
tained, because  it  can  be  rhetorically  of  great  effect,  and  can  make 
a  great  impression.  Moreover,  in  sermons  before  the  people  one 
has  to  appeal  to  their  sensuality  and  must,  as  much  as  possible, 
stoop  down  to  them." 

It  is  especially  noteworthy  that  Kant  says  '*he  who 
has  made  great  moral  progress  ceases  to  pray";  and 
he  adds  the  curious  observation  ^'  that  those  whom  one 
surprises  in  prayer  are  ashamed  of  themselves." 

The  Lord's  prayer  is  no  prayer  in  the  common  sense 
of  the  word.  It  is  not  an  incantation  that  exercises 
a  supernatural  influence  through  ''vain  repetitions." 
The  Lord's  prayer  must  be  lived,  rather  than  spoken. 
We  need  not  pray  it,  if  we  but  live  it.  Its  spirit  must  be- 
come part  of  our  soul,  so  that  our  whole  life  becomes  an 
exemplification  of  the  sentiment,  ''Thy  will  be  done." 

"Further,  psychology  teaches  that  very  often  the  exposition 
of  an  idea,  weakens  the  efficacy  it  possessed,  while  still  whole  and 
entire,  although  dark  and  undeveloped. 

"And,  finally,  there  is  hypocrisy  in  prayer  ;  for  the  man  who 
either  prays  audibly,  or  who  resolves  his  ideas  internally  in  words, 
regards  the  Deity  as  something  that  can  be  grasped  by  the  senses, 
while  it  is  only  a  principle  which  his  reason  urges  him  to  assume. 


90  CHRIST  AA'D   THE  CHRISTIANS. 

While  Christ's  prayer  means  resignation  to  the  will 
of  God,  the  Christian's  prayer  is  a  superstitious  trust  in 
miracles,  in  the  hope  that  they  will  be  performed  for 
his  advantage.  Christ's  prayer  is  an  effort  to  change 
our  own  will,  not  God's  will ;  it  is  a  self-exhortation 
which  helps  us  to  be  satisfied  with  God's  will  and  to 
perform  our  duties. 

These  are  striking  differences  between  Christ  and 
Christians,  between  Christ's  faith  and  the  Christian's 
faith,  between  Christ's  prayer  and  the  Christian's 
prayer,  between  Christ's  religion  and  ecclesiasticism. 
Christ  is  a  savior,  a  liberator,  a  reformer;  the  typical 
Christian  is  a  stumbling-block,  and  a  cause  of  an- 
noj^ance. 

There  is  a  wonderful  saving  power  in  the  words  of 
Christ,  but  the  name- Christians  do  not  know  it.  They 
walk  in  darkness  and  are  not  even  aware  of  it  them- 
selves. They  believe  themselves  to  be  saints,  and  are 
in  fact  the  spiritual  successors  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees. 

If  ever  the  name  of  Christ  be  dimmed  in  its  glory, 
it  will  be  done  by  the  vices  of  his  followers  in  name, 
and  the  freethinker  will  have  to  be  called  upon  to  re- 
store the  lost  halo  of  the  greatest  reformer  and  the 
staunchest  defender  of  free  thought  and  liberty. 

The  religion  of  science  is  not  and  cannot  be  the 
Christianity  of  those  who  call  themselves  orthodox 
Christians,  but  it  is  and  will  remain  the  Christianity  of 
Christ. 


TPxE  CATHOLICITY  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS 
SPIRIT. 


THE  CATHOLICITY  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS 
SPIRIT. 

The  old  traditional  religions  take,  as  it  were,  a  bee- 
line  in  advancing  man  to  the  benefits  and  blessings  of 
truth.  They  make  it  possible  for  man  to  feel  the  truth 
without  knowing  it ;  the  truth  is  given  him  in  a  mix- 
ture with  mythology,  so  that  even  minds  incapable  of 
scientific  inquiry  can  possess  and  apply  it  in  practical 
life. 

Religion  will  naturally  appear  to  neophytes  who 
have  not  entered  into  its  sanctissimum  and  have  never 
had  a  glimpse  of  its  esoteric  spirit  as  a  mystery;  and  to 
those,  who,  blind  to  its  truth,  see  its  mythology  only 
as  a  medley  of  human  fraud  and  folly. 

In  the  assurance  of  devout  piety  there  is  a  wisdom 
that  is  not  discarded  by  the  religion  of  science.  We 
can  have,  and  we  should  have,  a  resolute  confidence 
in  the  unbreakable  and  unbroken  laws  of  existence. 
We  can  have,  and  we  should  have,  an  intimate  and 
truly  personal  relation  to  that  All-being  in  which, 
through  which,  and  to  which  we  live.  This  All-being 
in  its  wonderful  harmony  of  law  surrounds  and  per- 
vades our  entire  existence.    We  cannot  withdraw  our- 


94        CATHOLICITY  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  SPIRIT. 

selves  from  its  influence,  and,  truly,  it  is  grand  and 
sublime  and  perfect  beyond  description.  It  is  the 
source  of  all  blessings,  and  it  encompasses  us  with  a 
beneficence  that  can  be  compared  only  to  a  father's 
love.  It  is  greater  than  a  father's  love ;  and  is  greater 
than  any  particular  thing  we  know  of,  for  it  comprises 
all  things,  and  a  father's  love  is  only  one  brilliant  ray 
of  its  sunshine. 

When  we  regard  our  own  being  as  a  revelation  of 
the  All-being,  so  that  our  very  self  is  felt  to  be  an  in- 
carnation of  nature's  divinity,  and  that  our  will  is 
identified  with  God's  will,  we  shall  learn  to  look  upon 
the  troubles  and  anxieties  of  life  with  quietude.  A 
heavenly  rest  will  overspread  all  our  being.  Whether 
we  struggle  and  conquer  or  stumble  and  fall,  whether 
we  are  in  joy  or  in  sorrow,  whether  we  live  or  die,  we 
know  that  it  is  a  greater  one  than  ourselves  who  suf- 
fers and  struggles  and  has  his  being  in  us  and  in  our 
aspirations,  and  his  greatness  sanctifies  the  yearnings 
of  our  heart  and  consecrates  even  the  trivialities  of 
life. 

We  do  not  exist  for  enjoyment,  for  truly  pure  en- 
joyment is  an  impossibility.  We  live  to  perform  work. 
We  have  a  mission.   There  are  duties  imposed  upon  us. 

And  we  can  gain  satisfaction  only  by  performing 
our  work,  by  complying  with  our  mission,  by  attend- 
ing to  our  duties. 

There  is  no  genuine  happiness,  unless  it  be  the 
rapture  of  the  God  moving  in  us. 


CATHOLICITY  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  SPIRIT.        93 

When  we  consider  the  letter  in  which  truth  is  ex- 
pressed, we  find  an  unfathomable  abyss  between  the 
religion  of  science  and  the  dogmatic  religions  of  the 
established  churches.  It  is  the  abyss  that  separates 
mythology  from  truth,  paganism  from  sound  science, 
idolatry  from  self-reliance,  superstition  from  religion, 
bigotry  from  righteousness. 

When  we  consider  the  spirit  in  which  the  truth  is 
felt,  we  find  that  the  spirit  is  the  same  in  the  old  his 
torical  religions  as  in  the  religion  of  science. 

The  spirit  of  almost  all  the  words  of  the  great 
teachers  of  mankind  is  the  same  as  that  which  must 
animate  the  religion  of  science,  and  the  most  beauti- 
ful, the  profoundest,  and  sublimest  of  all  sayings  are 
those  spoken  by  the  great  Master  of  Galilee. 

The  spirit  of  religion  is  true  and  noble,  but  dog- 
matism affects,  like  a  deadly  poison,  the  religions  of 
mankind.  How  many  of  the  keenest  and  most  scien- 
tific thinkers  have  been,  and  are  still,  through  its  in- 
fluence, estranged  from  the  church!  Dogmatism  warps 
the  sentiments  of  men  and  takes  away  the  natural  charm 
that  surrounds  the  holiest  enthusiasm.  Nevertheless, 
even  in  orthodox  churchmen  the  light  of  true  religion 
sometimes  shines  undimmed. 

One  of  the  founders  of  Christian  dogmatism  is  St. 
Augustine.  But  he  is  not  so  narrow  as  are  his  follow- 
ers. Although  he  sometimes  appears  narrow,  his  con- 
ception of  Christianity  is  broad,  so  that  he  might  call 
it.  the  cosmic  religion,  the  religion  of  truth,  or  that  re- 


96        CATHOLICITY  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  SPIRIT. 

ligion  which  the  scientist  will  find  to  be  founded  in  the 
constitution  of  the  universe.  Christianity  is  to  him  only 
a  name  which  was  recently  given  to  the  cosmic  religion 
of  universal  truth.      He  says  : 

•'The  very  same  thing  which  now  is  called  Christianity  ex- 
isted among  the  ancients  and  was  not  absent  in  the  beginning  of 
mankind  until  Christ  himself  appeared  in  the  flesh,  whence  the 
true  religion,  which  already  existed,  began  to  be  called  Christian." 
(Retr.  I.  13.)* 

We  are,  furthermore,  strangely  impressed  with  the 
remarkable  agreement  that  obtains,  not  in  the  letter, 
but  in  the  spirit,  between  the  teachings  of  the  religion 
of  science  and  those  of  Johannes  Tauler. 

The  quotation  of  a  few  short  passages  will  suffice 
to  set  this  agreement  in  a  clear  light. 

The  chapter  which  is  to  be  considered  as  the  quin- 
tessence of  all  his  preaching,  "containing  the  doctrines 
of  Tauler  in  three  points,  discusses  the  subject,  "how 
we  shall  perfectly  go  out  of  ourselves  and  enter  God." 

It  must  be  observed  that  Tauler's  terminology  is 
different  from  ours.  While  "nature,"  in  the  termi- 
nology of  science,  is  identical  with  reality,  including 
all  that  exists,  also  the  laws  of  nature  and  the  reality 
of  our  spiritual  being,  it  means  to  Tauler  only  the 
lower  desires  of  man  and  that  which  is  apt  to  elicit 
them.  "Nature"  means  to  Tauler  what  "  Sansara  " 
means  to  the  Buddhist.     It  is  the  sham  of  our  indi- 

♦  Ipse  res  quce  nunc  Christiana  religio  nuncupatur,  erat  apud  antiquos  nee 
defuit  ab  initio  generis  humani,  quousque  ipse  Christus  veniret  in  carne,  unde 
vera  religio  quce  jam  erat,  coepit  appellari  Christiana. 


CATHOLICITY  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  SPIRIT.        97 

vidual  existence,  the  delusion  of  egotism,  and  the  Van- 
ity Fair  of  our  transient  pleasures. 
Says  Tauler*  : 

' '  We  now  propose  three  points  which  contain  briefly  all  that 
on  which  we  have  expatiated  in  this  book. 

"The  first  point  is  this  :  He  who  wants  to  make  progress  in 
his  sanctification,  to  become  a  real  and  afiBrmed  friend  of  God,  to 
love  God  with  all  his  heart,  with  all  his  soul,  and  with  all  his  mind, 
and  his  neighbor  as  himself,  and  to  truly  feel  God's  presence  in 
his  interior,  in  his  heart,  all  earthly  love  of  and  inclination  toward 
anything  that  is  not  God  must  be  slain  and  must  remain  dead." 

We  have  to  remark  that  there  may  be  a  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  what  God  is  and  what  God  is  not.  For 
instance,  the  duties  of  family  life,  energetic  enterprise 
in  business,  admiration  of  art  may  have  appeared,  if 
not  to  Tauler,  but  to  any  average  clergyman  of  Tau- 
ler's  time,  as  ungodly.  The  religion  of  science  finds 
God  in  all  things.  The  religion  of  science  has  over- 
come the  error  of  negativism  and  has  freed  us  from  the 
shackels  of  asceticism.  But  this  difference  of  view  as 
to  the  nature  of  God  should  not  prevent  us  from  seeing 
the  concurrence  in  principles. 

Tauler  continues  : 

"The  second  point  demands  that  if  we  wish  here  in  time,  and 
there  in  eternity,  to  attain  to  the  cognition  of  the  highest  truth, 
we  must  in  all  things  rid  ourselves  of  all  pleasures  of  the  spirit,  in 
which  the  spirit  seeks  and  means  itself.     It  is  so  common,  alas  ! 

*  Medulla  Anima,  Chap.  XXWl  in  Surius's  Latin  edition,  Chap.  XXV  in 
the  German  edition,  Chap.  XXXIX  in  Cassender's  modern  translation.  The 
quotations  above  are  translated  from  the  Cassender  edition  (Prague,  1872,  2d 
ed.,  F.  Tempsky). 


q8        catholicity  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  SPIRIT. 

that  having  abandoned  all  the  externalities  of  life,  the  pleasure  of 
the  spirit  in  us  begins  to  awake.  The  spirit  is  pleased  with  certain 
fancies  and  certain  ways  which  it  loves  as  its  alter  ego,  which  it 
seeks  and  aims  at ;  and  thus  the  spirit  is  captivated  in  these  things 
and  shut  out  from  the  true  light  so  that  the  latter  cannot  give  any 
enlightenment.  The  self-loving  lust  of  the  spirit  to  which  the 
spirit  loves  to  surrender  itself  hinders  and  dims  the  rays  of  divine 
truth.  The  exercises,  whatever  they  may  be,  contemplation, 
thought,  activity,  intuition,  etc.,  are  not  used  as  means  for  a  pure 
seeking  God,  v/illing  God,  and  meaning  God.  The  spirit  rather 
seeks  in  them  its  own  self.  Their  purpose  is  the  ego  and  not 
God." 

Is  this  passage  not  true  of  all  those  arguments 
which  are  brought  forth  in  favor  of  an  individual  im- 
mortality of  the  ego  ?  How  often  is  it  claimed  that 
any  other  immortality  but  the  ego-immortality  is  un- 
satisfactory. Truly,  the  immortality  of  the  soul  as 
taught  by  science  must  be  unsatisfactory  to  every  one 
whose  religion  has  not  as  yet  reached  the  height  and 
purity  of  Tauler's  doctrines.  Those  who  find  satisfac- 
tion only  if  they  have  an  ego-immortality,  do  not  seek 
God  in  religion,  but  themselves. 

Tauler's  second  point  finds  further  explanation  : 

"In  this  state  (of  seeking  God,  willing  God,  and  meaning  God) 
nature  must  slaughter  and  sacrifice  its  pleasure  ;  its  seeking  self 
must  die  entirely.  .  .  .  This  means  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
to  die  off  to  one's  self.  It  is  a  real  entwerden  (a  becoming  nothing), 
an  annihilation,  a  losing,  a  resignation.  Nothing  remains  but  God  ; 
nothing  is  retained  but  He ;  there  is  no  rest  but  in  Him  ;  so 
that  God,  in  and  with  man,  can  do  His  will,  so  that  God  alone  be 
willing,  working,  illumining,  and  moving  in  man,  man  being  noth- 


CATHOLICITY  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  SPIRIT.        99 

ing  of  his  own  accord,  neither  willing,  nor  working,  nor  illumining, 
nay,  even  not  existing  except  as  that  which  God  is  in  him  ;  so  that 
man  is  nothing  at  all  in  his  ways,  works,  and  objects  ;  i.  e  ,  in  all 
things  man  should  seek  himself  neither  in  time  nor  in  eternity." 

"The  third  point  of  the  whole  doctrine  is  this  :  When  man 
has  freed  himself  externally  and  internally  of  any  and  all  pre- 
tensions, when  he  has  reached  the  state,  in  the  way  we  have  indi- 
cated, of  standing  upon  his  nothingness,  then  alone  can  he  freely 
enter  into  the  highest  and  simplest  good — into  God.  His  entrance 
however,  must  be  thorough  and  not  in  part.  .  .  .  O,  what  bliss  lies 
in  such  moments  !  .  .  .  .  One  such  entrance  into  God  is  subliraer 
and  more  excellent  than  many  other  and  often  so-called  great  ex- 
ercises and  works  outside  of  it.  In  it  alone  is  real  divine  life  and 
true  peace." 

Tauler  took  Christianity  seriously  and  extracted  its 
quintessence.  Let  us  take  Tauler  seriously,  and  we 
come  to  an  agreement  with  Christianity. 

Cling  to  the  meaning  of  your  mythology,  O  ye  faith- 
ful ;  and  you  will  naturally  walk  on  the  right  path! 

There  is  this  constant  objection  made,  '*  If  the  reli- 
gious doctrines  are  not  literally  true,  if  God  is  not 
truly  a  person,  if  my  ego  is  a  mere  illusion,  if  heaven 
and  hell  are  conditions  of  our  being  and  not  places 
somewhere  in  space,  what  do  I  care  for  the  meaning 
of  these  parables  ?  " 

We  answer  :  The  substance  is  better  than  the  al- 
legory, the  meaning  is  deeper  than  the  mythology, 
truth  is  greater  than  fiction. 

He  who  does  not  see  that  the  substance  is  better 
than  the  allegory,  the  meaning  deeper  than  the  myth- 
ology, and  truth  greater  than  fiction,  had  better  cling 


loo      CATHOLICITY  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  SPIRIT. 

to  the  allegory,  mythology,  and  fiction,  lest  he  lose  the 
substance,  the  meaning,  and  the  truth.     His  mind  is 
not  as  yet  sufficiently  matured  to  receive  the  truth. 
We  cannot  feed  the  babes  with  meat,  we  must  give 

them  milk. 

* 

The  main  secret  of  the  innumerable  blessings  and 
benefits  which  can  be  derived  from  religion  lies  in  this  : 
that  by  learning  how  to  live  we  learn  to  understand  the 
meaning  of  the  world.  The  mystery  of  being  is  revealed 
only  to  the  man  who  actually  lives  a  moral  life. 

Religion  on  the  one  hand  demands  a  surrender  of 
all  egotistic  desires,  it  teaches  us  the  right  spirit  in 
which  we  must  regulate  our  conduct ;  and  on  the  other 
hand  religion  gradually  accustoms  us  to  viewing  life 
from  the  higher  standpoint  of  the  divinity  of  nature. 
We  see  that  which  is  transient  as  transient  and  iden- 
tify our  being  with  that  which  is  eternal.  And  the  air 
we  breathe  on  the  heights  to  which  religion  raises  us 
is  bracing,  refreshing,  and  healthy. 

The  religion  of  science  is  not  a  substitute  for  the 
dogmatic  and  mythological  religions  of  our  churches. 
On  the  contrary,  the  church-religions  are  a  substitute 
for  the  religion  of  science  ;  they  are  a  mere  temporary 
expedient  proposing  mythologies  so  long  as  the  truth 
is  not  as  yet  forthcoming.  When  that  which  is  perfect 
is  come,  then  that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away. 
The  mythology  is  of  a  passing  value  but  the  truth  will 
abide. 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER. 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER. 

The  Religion  of  Science  has  been  severely  criticised 
in  a  series  of  articles  that  appeared  in  the  Freethought 
Magazine  and  were  afterwards  republished  in  pam- 
phlet-form under  the  title  ''Religion  and  Science^  the 
Reconciliation  Mania  of  Dr.  Paul  Carus  of  The  Open 
Court  Analysed  and  Refuted  by  Corvinus." 

Identifying  the  negativism  of  his  peculiar  free- 
thought  with  Science,  and  Religion  with  superstition, 
Corvinus  denounces  every  attempt  at  reconciliation 
between  Religion  and  Science,  and  condemns  my  ex- 
positions of  a  religion  that  would  be  in  accord  with 
Science  as  a  ''conglomeration  of  self-contradictory 
ideas,"  which  display  ''inconsistency"  and  "ambigu- 
ity." He  calls  me  a  "freethinker  in  disguise,"  and 
contrasts  such  passages  in  which  I  appear  as  "vir- 
tually a  freethinker"  with  others  in  which  I  maintain 
the  existence  of  God  and  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 

There  are  plenty  of  misrepresentations  in  Corvi- 
nus's  criticism,  but  they  are  apparently  involuntary. 
It  is  true  that  I  use  many  old  words,  such  as  Religion, 
God,   soul,  and  immortality,   in  a  new  sense,   but  I 


I04 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER. 


have  always  been  careful  to  explain  what  I  mean. 
Had  I  ever  tried  to  dodge  the  truth,  or  leave  people 
in  doubt  as  to  my  opinions,  there  would  be  some  jus- 
tice in  the  accusations  of  Corvinus.  The  fact  is  that 
my  definitions  are  new  mainly  because  they  are  more 
definite  than  those  handed  down  to  us  by  tradition. 

My  method  of  reconciliation  consists  in  showing  the 
dogmatic  believer  a  way  out  of  his  narrowness.  I 
undertake  to  instruct  him  in  the  meaning  of  his  reli- 
gion, pointing  out  how  he  can  decipher  the  symbols  of 
his  creed  and  transfigure  them  into  exact  truth.  At 
the  same  time  I  give  to  the  freethinker  the  key  which 
will  unlock  the  mysteries  of  traditional  religion,  and 
exhibit  the  significance  of  their  peculiar  forms,  so  full 
of  beauty  and  comfort  to  the  believer,  and  so  grotesque 
to  the  uninitiated. 

That  Corvinus  judges  rashly  of  the  work  which  I 
do,  is,  in  my  opinion,  simply  due  to  the  fact  that  he 
never  felt  the  need  of  a  reconciliation  of  religion  with 
science,  and  science  with  religion.  He  knows  neither 
the  real  character  of  the  religious  people  of  to-day, 
nor  does  he  understand  the  historical  import  of  reli- 
gion. He  only  knows  the  little  circle  of  his  own  so- 
ciety, in  which  freethought  prevails,  and  he  has  prob- 
ably never  investigated  the  evolution  of  moral  ideals, 
which,  without  religion,  would  never  have  been  dis- 
seminated or  enthusiastically  received  among  the 
masses  of  mankind.  Morality  without  religion,  and  of 
course  we  mean  here  religion  in  the  highest  sense  of 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETH1NK?:R.  105 

the  word,  would  have  simply  been  fear  of  the  police, 
and  nothing  more. 

Corvinus  has  misunderstood  the  most  important 
side  of  my  position.  He  sees  the  negations  alone  of 
my  philosophy,  which  ally  me  so  strongly  with  the 
freethinker  party,  but  not  its  affirmations,  and  I  would 
say,  that  if  to  be  a  freethinker  means  to  be  purely 
negative  and  to  reject  wholesale  everything  that  has 
been  established  by  the  millennial  evolution  of  re- 
ligion, I  am  not  a  freethinker,  but  I  am  an  orthodox 
among  the  orthodox  ;  nay,  an  arch-orthodox,  for  while 
the  old-fashioned  orthodoxy  claims  to  be  a  system  of 
belief,  the  new  orthodoxy  which  is  implied  in  the  Re- 
ligion of  Science  claims  to  be  based  on  a  firmer  founda- 
tion than  mere  belief.  *  It  is  built  upon  evidence  which 
can  be  rejected  only  by  those  who  are  unable  to  com- 
prehend the  import  of  facts. 

To  Corvinus,  all  religions,  and  especially  Christian- 
ity, are  errors  and  unmitigated  nonsense,  while  I  see 
in  them  the  development  of  that  most  important  side 
of  man's  nature,  which  determines  the  character  of  his 
Hfe.  In  my  opinion,  the  very  idea  of  '*a  system  of 
pure  ethics  "  is  unscientific.  Ethics  is  always  the  ex- 
pression of  a  world-conception.  Every  religion  and 
every  philosophy  has  its  own  ethics.  Cut  ethics  loose 
from  its  basis,  and  it  remains  an  arbitrary  system  of 
rules  without  either  raison  d'etre  or  authority.      The 

*See  the  author's  article,  "The  New  Orthodoxy,"  a  paper  read  before 
the  Pan-American  Congress  of  Religion  and  Education,  Toronto,  1895  ;  pub- 
lished in  The  Monist,  Vol.  VI.,  No.  i,  pp.  91-98. 


io6  IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER, 

raison  d'etre  of  moral  commandments  is  the  most  es- 
sential part  of  ethics  ;  it  is  the  root  from  which  moral- 
ity springs,  and  whatever  this  raiso?i  d'etre  be,  it  is  the 
religion  of  the  man  who  owns  it.  If  there  are  men 
who  have  no  other  raison  d'etre  for  moral  conduct  than 
their  own  personal  welfare,  I  would  say  that  their  re- 
ligion consists  in  the  attainment  of  happiness.  If  they 
recognise  no  authority  to  which  they  bow  save  their 
own  pleasure  or  displeasure,  their  God  is  Self.  Now, 
it  has  been  maintained  by  some  freethinkers  that  the 
very  nature  of  freethought  consists  in  this  unshackled 
freedom,  and  I  would  say  that  if  their  conception  is 
truly  legitimate  freethought,  I  am  no  freethinker,  for  I 
believe,  nay,  I  know,  that  there  is  a  power  in  this  world 
which  we  have  to  recognise  as  the  norm  of  truth  and 
the  standard  of  right  conduct  ;  and,  indeed,  there  are 
conditions  in  which  our  personal  happiness  may  seri- 
ously come  into  conflict  with  our  duties.  In  this  sense 
I  uphold  the  idea  of  God  as  being  a  supreme  authority 
for  moral  conduct,  the  presence  of  which  in  life  can 
only  be  denied  by  men  whose  opposition  to  the  false 
dogmatism  of  the  traditional  religions  leads  them  to 
deny  also  their  truth,  which  is  their  very  essence,  and 
the  cause  of  their  continued  existence. 

Religion,  as  it  originates  among  the  various  nations 
of  the  world,  is  not  the  product  of  systematised  inves- 
tigation, but  of  race-experience.  It  is  natural  that 
truths  of  great  importance  were,  long  before  a  scien- 
tific investigation  could  explain  their  nature,  invented 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER.  107 

by  instinct.  Thus  the  Egyptians  invented  imple- 
ments, the  use  of  which  is  based  on  laws  utterly  un- 
intelligible in  those  days.  In  the  same  way  moral 
truths  were  proclaimed  by  the  prophets,  who  felt  their 
significance  without  being  able  to  explain  them  by  a 
philosophical  argumentation,  and  it  is  to  the  enormous 
practical  importance  of  these  truths  that  they  owe 
their  survival.  To  show  justice  and  mercy  to  enemies 
appears  at  first  sight  foolish,  but  experience  has  taught 
that  the  men  who  insisted  on  this  principle  were  right, 
and  the  belief  in  their  divine  mission  became  by  and 
by  established.  The  prophets  of  almost  all  nations 
were  persecuted,  but  their  doctrines  survived,  and  led 
naturally  enough  to  the  foundation  of  institutions  such 
as  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews,  the  church  of  the  Chris- 
tians, the  sangha  of  the  Buddhists. 

The  religious  conception  which  it  is  my  life-work 
to  uphold,  is  simple  enough,  yet  I  find  that  Corvinus 
has  radically  misunderstood  its  main  significance, 
without  which  all  my  writing  would  indeed  be  a  mere 
quibbling  of  words  and  an  ambiguous  display  of  old 
phrases,  not  in  a  new  sense,  but  without  any  sense. 

One  instance  will  be  sufficient  to  point  out  the  mis- 
conception of  Corvinus.  Corvinus  declares  that  God 
is  with  me  ''only  an  idea,"  implying  that  it  is  no  re- 
ality.    He  says  (p.  31): 

"  If  God  is  being  defined  simply  as  abstract  thought,  an  idea, 
as  something  existing  only  in  imagination  and  not  in  reality,  it  is 
meaningless  to  say,  '  Science  is  a  revelation  of  God.'  " 


io8  IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER. 

And  he  adds  : 

"Science  is  the  achievement  of  man  and  nothing  else." 

In  opposition  to  his  statement  I  say  that  the  idea 
of  God  is  an  abstract  thought,  but  God  himself  is  a 
realit3\  There  is  no  abstract  thought  but  it  is  in- 
vented to  describe  a  reality.*  If  the  term  "God"  did 
not  describe  an  actual  reality,  it  would  be  meaningless 
to  speak  of  "Science  as  a  revelation  of  God. '*  I  grant 
that  Science  is  "the  achievement  of  man,"  but  that  is 
one  side  only  of  the  truth.  Far  from  being  "the 
achievement  of  man  and  nothing  else,''''  Science  is  in  its 
very  essence  superhuman.  Man  cannot  invent  math- 
ematics ;  he  must  discover  its  theorems.  He  cannot 
make  the  laws  of  nature ;  he  must  describe  them.  He 
cannot  establish  facts  ;  he  must  investigate,  and  can 
only  determine  the  truth.  Nor  can  he  set  up  a  code 
of  morals,  but  he  must  adapt  himself  to  the  eternal 
moral  law  which  is  the  condition  of  human  society  and 
the  factor  that  shapes  the  human  of  man. 

Here  is  the  point  where  Corvinus  radically  differs 
from  my  position.  He  says,  quoting  a  misunderstood 
passage  from  Haeckel : 

"  '  Constantly  to  speak  of  the  moral  laws  of  nature  proves 
blindness  to  the  undeniable  facts  of  human  and  natural  history.'  " 

Corvinus  adds : 

"All  moral  laws  from  their  beginning  in  the  dim  past  among 

*An  apparent  exception  to  this  rule  is  the  conception  of  the  irrational  in 
mathematics.  The  irrational  is  a  symbol  representing  a  function  which  can- 
not be  performed.  The  root-extraction  of  ( — i)  is  as  impossible  as  the  squar- 
ing of  the  circle. 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER.  109 

our  rude,  savage- like  predecessors  up  to  the  noblest  conceptions  of 
modern  ethics,  were  conceived,  proposed,  and  consequently  estab- 
lished by  man." 

Corvinus  says  that  ''necessity  gave  birth  to  these 
moral  laws,"  meaning  probably  by  necessity  ''the 
needs  of  man."  I  accept  his  reply,  and  would  say 
that  the  needs  of  man  indicate  the  presence  of  a  higher 
necessity,  viz.,  of  that  necessity  which  we  trace  in  the 
harmony  of  natural  laws  and  in  the  peculiarly  compli- 
cated simplicity  of  mathematics.  This  higher  neces- 
sity is  the  ultimate  raison  d'etre  of  the  moral  law,  and 
it  is  a  characteristic  feature  of  that  omnipotent  pres- 
ence which  we  can  trace  everywhere.  Intrinsic  neces- 
sity means  eternality,  immutability,  stern  and  inflexible 
authority — in  a  word,  it  means  God. 

Corvinus  confounds  two  things  :  moral  injunctions 
and  the  natural  law  of  morality.  Moral  injunctions 
are  proposed  and  established  by  man  in  his  anxiety  to 
adapt  himself  to  the  moral  law,  exactly  as  an  architect 
may  write  down  the  rules  for  building  bridges  so  that 
according  to  the  material  which  he  uses  the  law  of 
gravitation  shall  not  be  infringed  upon.  If  the  archi- 
tect's rules  are  in  conformity  with  the  natural  condi- 
tions, such  as  scientists  formulate  in  what  is  called 
laws  of  nature,  he  will  be  able  to  build  boldly  and 
securely.  And  if  the  laws  of  legislators  are  based  upon 
a  correct  conception  of  the  moral  law  of  nature,  the 
nations  who  adopt  them  will  prosper  and  progress. 

It  appears  that,  according  to  Corvinus,  the  moral 


no  IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER. 

law  of  nature  is  a  nonentity,  while  the  injunctions  of 
law-givers  are  all  that  can  be  called  a  moral  law.  The 
fact  is  just  the  reverse.  The  moral  law  of  nature  is 
the  eternal  abiding  reality,  while  the  laws  and  injunc- 
tions of  man  are  only  its  transitory  and  more  or  less 
imperfect  expressions.  The  moral  law  of  nature  alone 
partakes  of  that  feature  which  in  all  religions  is  attrib- 
uted to  God.  It  is  eternal,  it  is  omnipresent,  it  is  ir- 
refragable. Certainly  the  moral  law  is  not  a  concrete 
object,  not  an  individual  fact,  not  a  personal  being, 
but  for  that  reason  it  is  not  a  nonentity.  It  cannot  be 
seen  with  the  eye,  or  heard  with  the  ear,  or  tasted  with 
the  tongue,  or  touched  with  the  hands.  It  is  one  of 
those  higher  realities  which  can  only  be  perceived  by 
the  mind.  The  senses  are  insufficient  to  encompass 
it,  but  any  normal  mind  can  grasp  it. 

There  was  in  the  Middle  Ages  a  philosophical  party 
called  the  Nominalists,  who  denied  the  objective  ex- 
istence of  ideas,  declaring  ideas  to  be  mere  names 
without  any  corresponding  reality.  Their  adversaries, 
called  the  Realists,  believed  in  the  reality  of  ideas. 
And  while  the  nominalistic  philosophy  was  rejected, 
it  began  to  flourish  again  and  found  its  mightiest  ex- 
pression in  the  transcendental  idealism  of  the  great 
sage  of  Konigsberg.  On  this  line  of  thought  the  whole 
universe  becomes  intrinsically  incomprehensible,  end- 
ing at  last  in  agnosticism,  in  which  Nominalism  reaches 
its  final  reductio  ad  ahsu7-dum. 

Corvinus  is  apparently  a  nominalist.      Ideas  are  to 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER.  iii 

him  mere  ideas,  i.  e.,  subjective  inventions  without 
objective  reality ;  and  science,  that  most  methodical 
system  of  ideas,  is  not  a  revelation  of  objective  truth, 
but  "the  achievement  of  man  and  nothing  else."  It 
is,  accordingly,  in  the  same  predicament  as  the  names 
of  the  nominalists,  and  he  who  studies  science  is  like 
Hamlet  in  one  of  his  erratic  moods  reading,  as  he 
says,  ''Words,  words,  words."  Science  would  be  mere 
words  without  any  objective  significance. 

Now  I  will  not  quarrel  with  Corvinus  about  names. 
He  has  an  inherited  objection  to  the  very  word  < '  God. " 
I  will  not  now  apply  the  name  God  to  that  peculiar  pres- 
ence of  superhuman  reahty  which  the  various  sciences 
reveal  to  us  in  parts,  but  I  insist  on  its  being  a  reality; 
indeed,  I  maintain  that  it  is  the  most  real  reality  in 
the  world.  We  may  call  it  cosmic  order,  or  law  {^Ge- 
seizmdssigkeit),  or  necessity,  or  the  eternal,  or  the  im- 
mutable, or  the  omnipresent,  the  absolute,  or  the  pro- 
totype of  mind,  or  the  standard  of  rationality,  or  the 
universal  Logos,  or  the  authority  of  conduct.  But  it 
exists,  in  undeniable  objectivity.  We  cannot  mould  it 
or  shape  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  are  the  products 
of  its  handiwork.  Every  arithmetical  formula,  every 
law  of  nature,  every  truth,  is  a  partial  revelation  of 
its  character,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  infinite  uni- 
verse but  is  swayed  by  its  influence.  It  encompasses 
the  motions  of  the  infinitesimal  atoms  and  of  the 
grandest  suns  ;  it  is  the  logic  of  man's  reason  and  the 
nobility  of  man's  moral  aspirations. 


IT2  IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER. 

It  is  true  that  I  deny  the  existence  of  an  individual 
God.  In  this  sense  I  am  an  outspoken  atheist.  Never- 
theless, I  declare  most  emphatically  that  God  is  a  real- 
ity, and  indeed,  God  is  a  super-individual  reality.  In 
Corvinus's  opinion  this  is  a  flat  contradiction  and  he 
has  no  other  explanation  of  it  than  by  considering 
it  as  a  tergiversation.  He  puts  it  down  as  a  mania 
through  which  I  try  to  reconcile  the  errors  of  the  past 
with  the  truths  of  modern  times.  By  truths  of  mod- 
ern times  he  understands  negations  of  all  and  any  posi- 
tive issues  in  religion,  so  that  as  soon  as  I  attempt  to 
formulate  freethought  in  positive  terms,  which  is  tan- 
tamount to  recognising  the  truth  in  our  traditions,  he 
decries  me  for  pandering  to  popular  superstitions. 

In  my  opinion  freethought  has  been  barren  because 
of  its  negativism  and  it  is  now  behind  the  times  be- 
cause it  has  failed  to  come  out  with  positive  issues,  and 
now  that  The  Open  Court  Publishing  Co.  is  propos- 
ing a  constructive  freethought,  its  work  is  suspected, 
criticised,  and  rejected  by  freethinkers.  In  spite  of  the 
negations  of  Corvinus,  I  insist  that  the  reality  of  God 
is  an  undeniable  fact,  scientifically  provable  by  unfail- 
ing evidence.  It  can  be  established  so  surely  that  Cor- 
vinus, as  soon  as  he  grasps  the  meaning  of  the  idea, 
would  say  that  it  is  a  truism. 

Philosophical  materialism  has  so  strongly  affected 
our  ideas  that  the  average  mind  is  incapable  of  be- 
lieving in  immaterial  realities.  First,  the  immaterial 
realities  of  natural  laws  were  represented  as  personal 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER.  113 

beings,  then  as  metaphysical  essences,  and  now  since 
we  know  that  metaphysicism  is  untenable  their  very 
existence  is  denied,  and,  being  recognised  as  immate- 
rial, they  are  declared  to  be  unreal.  But  the  objective 
reality  of  form  and  the  laws  of  form  is  exactly  the  truth 
which  v/e  must  learn  to  appreciate. 

That  which  the  senses  do  not  perceive,  but  is  dis- 
cernible by  the  mind,  is  not  non-existent  but  possesses 
a  higher  kind  of  existence.  It  constitutes  the  unity  of 
the  universe  and  the  harmony  of  its  order.  Without 
it,  the  world  would  not  be  a  cosmos  but  an  incoherent 
chaos  ;  nature  would  be  matter  in  motion,  without  any 
regularity  of  mechanical  adjustment  and  the  system  of 
thought-forms  which  constitutes  the  superiority  of  the 
human  mind  would  never  have  developed.  Without 
it,  Science  would  be  mere  verbiage.  Religion  meaning- 
less, and  ethics  an  impossibility. 

The  new  philosophy  which  I  represent — call  it 
Monism,  or  the  New  Positivism  (for  it  differs  from 
Comtean  Positivism),  or  the  Philosophy  of  Science,  or 
the  New  Realism — insists  on  the  reality  of  form  and  of 
relations,  and  on  the  significance  of  ideas.  The  soul  of 
man  is  not  in  his  blood  but  in  his  mind.  He  is  not  a 
mere  heap  of  atoms.  He  consists  of  ideas.  His  ex- 
istence is  not  purely  material.  It  is  also,  and  princi- 
pally, spiritual.  We  grant  that  there  is  no  ego-soul. 
There  is  as  little  a  metaphysical  thing-in-itself  of  man 
as  there  is  a  thing-in-itself  of  a  watch,  or  of  a  tree,  or 
of  a  natural  law.     But  nevertheless,  just  as  much  as 


114  IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER. 

that  combination  which  makes  of  a  spring,  cogs  and 
wheels,  an  instrument  called  a  watch,  is  not  a  non- 
entity but  a  reality,  in  the  same  way  man's  soul  in 
spite  of  the  non-existence  of  a  metaphysical  ego-soul 
is  not  a  nonentity  but  a  reality  ;  and  the  mould  into 
which  we  have  been  cast  is  that  divinity  of  the  world 
which  was  at  the  beginning  and  will  remain  for  ever 
and  aye. 

If  there  is  anything  that  deserves  the  name  of  God- 
head, it  is  this  peculiar  supersensible  Reality,  the  vari- 
ous aspects  of  which  are  revealed  in  glimpses  that  we 
receive  in  Religion,  in  Ethics,  and  in  Science.  For 
here  alone  the  attributes  of  divinity  are  found,  viz., 
omnipresence  and  universality,  immutability  and  eter- 
nity, intrinsic  necessity  and  irrefragability.  It  is  one 
and  the  same  in  all  its  various  revelations,  in  mathe- 
matical theorems  and  in  ethical  injunctions.  There  is 
no  wisdom,  but  it  is  a  comprehension  of  its  truth. 
There  is  no  virtue,  but  it  is  a  compliance  with  its  dis- 
pensations. There  is  no  genuine  piety,  but  it  is  a  de- 
votion to  its  beauty  and  sovereignty.  If  there  are 
gods  of  any  kind,  it  is  the  God  of  gods,  and  if  the 
word  supernatural  has  any  sense,  here  is  it  applicable  ; 
for  here  we  have  the  conditions  for  all  possible  worlds, 
and  it  would  remain  such  as  it  is,  even  if  nature  did  not 
exist.  The  simplest  formulas  of  arithmetic  as  well 
as  the  noblest  moral  laws,  which  constitute  the  superi- 
ority of  love  over  hate  and  of  compassion  over  ferocity, 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER. 


115 


hold  good  for  this  actual  world  of  ours  not  less  than  for 
any  possible  world. 

Thus  we  learn  that  if  God  is  not  wise  like  a  sage, 
he  is  infinitely  more  than  wise  ;  he  is  that  which  con- 
stitutes the  essence  of  all  wisdom.  God  is  not  good 
like  a  well-meaning  man  ;  he  is  more  than  a  philan- 
thropist. God  is  the  measure  of  goodness  and  the 
moral  law  of  life. 

When  Corvinus  speaks  of  God  he  means  the  God- 
conception  of  average  Christianity.  But  we  can  assure 
him  that  the  masses  are  not  responsible  for  the  religion 
which  they  espouse,  while  many  leaders  in  the  churches 
are  far  from  believing  in  an  individual  God.  They 
may  not  be  clear  as  to  the  nature  of  God.  They  be- 
lieve in  Him  without  comprehending  his  Being  ;  but 
I  maintain  that  upon  the  whole  they  have  an  aspiration 
toward  a  higher  conception  and  that  in  the  long  run  of 
the  historical  evolution  of  mankind  they  will  more  and 
more  accept  the  idea  of  God  as  the  Religion  of  Sci- 
ence conceives  it  now.  They  try  to  conceive  the  idea 
of  God  as  a  truly  superpersonal  God,  and  at  the  same 
time  think  of  him  still  as  an  individual  being,  a  huge 
world-ego.  But  I  venture  to  say  that  this  combination 
is  self-contradictory.  If  such  an  individual  God,  a 
kind  of  world-ego,  a  distinct  and  single  being,  existed, 
if  this  God  were  a  being  who  had  been  the  creator  of 
the  universe  and  is  now  its  governor  and  supreme 
ruler,  I  would  say  that  that  superpersonal  Divinity, 
the  revelation  which  we  find  in  science,  and  the  es- 


ii6  IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER. 

sence  of  which  is  that  indescribable  presence  of  law 
and  cosmic  order,  must  be  considered  superior  to  him. 

Suppose  we  call  an  individual  God,  after  the  pre- 
cedent of  the  gnostics,  ''Demiurge"  or  world-archi- 
tect and  represent  him,  not  as  the  prototype  of  all 
personality,  but  as  an  actual  person  like  ourselves,  only 
infinitely  greater.  Now,  suppose  that  it  was  he  who 
made  the  world  as  a  watchmaker  makes  a  watch,  that 
he  regulates  it  as  we  wind  and  set  our  watches,  and 
that  he  owns  and  rules  it,  and  keeps  it  in  order.  Must 
we  not  grant  at  once  that  the  Demiurge,  though  in- 
finitely greater  than  man,  would  not  be  the  supreme 
Reality?  He  would  have  to  obey  those  supernatural 
laws  of  nature  which  constitute  their  intrinsic  neces- 
sity. He  would  not  be  the  ultimate  ground  of  moral- 
ity and  truth.  There  is  a  higher  authority  above  him. 
And  this  higher  and  highest  authority  is  the  God  of 
the  Religion  of  Science,  who  alone  is  worthy  of  the 
name  of  God.  The  God  of  the  Religion  of  Science  is 
still  the  God  of  the  Demiurge.  The  Demiurge  could 
have  created  the  world  only  by  complying  with  the 
eternal  and  unalterable  laws  of  being  to  which  he 
would  be  not  less  subject  than  all  his  creatures. 

Taking  this  ground,  we  say  that  the  God  of  the 
Religion  of  Science  alone  is  God,  and  not  the  Demi- 
urge in  whom  a  great  number  of  the  Christians  of  to- 
day still  believe.  The  Demiurge  is  a  mythical  figure, 
and  belief  in  him  is  true  paganism.  Monotheism  in 
this  sense  is  only  a  pol3'theism  which  has  reduced  the 


IN  REPLY  TO  A  FREETHINKER,  117 

number  of  its  gods  to  one  single  god-being.  The  God 
whom  the  Rehgion  of  Science  proclaims  is  not  a  sin- 
gle God-Being,  but  it  is  the  one,  the  sole,  the  self- 
consistent,  universal  sameness  of  divinity  that  is  the 
all-pervading  condition  of  any  possible  world  as  a  cos- 
mic universe. 

The  God  whom  the  Religion  of  Science  proclaims 
is  not  a  new  God,  but  it  is  the  old  God  proclaimed 
by  every  genuine  prophet,  among  the  Jews  and  also 
among  the  Gentiles,  only  purified  of  its  paganism. 

The  Philosophy  of  Science  is  not  an  absolutely  new 
philosophy,  but  only  a  more  distinct  formulation  of 
the  principles  which  have  long  been  practised  among 
scientists.  In  the  same  way,  the  Religion  of  Science 
is  not  a  radically  new  religion,  but  a  religious  reform 
which,  according  to  the  needs  of  the  time,  matures 
the  old  religions  and  opens  a  vista  into  the  future,  in 
which  the  most  radical  freethought  is  reconciled  with 
the  most  rigorous  orthodoxy.  And  this  is  not  done  by 
artificial  phrases  or  by  tergiversation,  but  by  fusing 
religion  in  the  furnace  of  science,  and  by  sifting  our 
religious  traditions  in  the  sieve  of  critique. 


INDEX. 


INDEX. 


Achromatic,  reality  as,  58. 

Adoration,  its  pagan  character,  70. 

Affliction,  comfort  in,  3  ;  its  benefits, 
14. 

Aim  of  life,  3,  42. 

Alchemists  not  to  be  despised,  66. 

All-being,  its  paternity  and  perfec- 
tion, 94. 

Allegory  adapted  to  certain  ages  and 
states,  71,  99. 

Analogies  useful  in  scientific  formu- 
lations, 67. 

Animism,  58. 

Annihilation  of  the  soul,  55. 

Anthropotheism,  22,  23. 

Arch-orthodox,  105. 

Artist,  function  of,  70. 

Asceticism,  30,  97. 

Astrologers  not  to  be  despised,  66. 

Atheism,  its  definition,  22. 

Augustine,  St.,  cited,  96;  his  breadth 
of  conception,  95. 

Authority  for  conduct,  21,  23,  27;  its 
basis,  12,  109,  III. 

Being,  a  revelation  of  All-being,  74. 
Blind  faith,  9. 
Book,  a  simile  of  man,  49. 
Buddha,  in  invisible  church,  v. 
Buddhistic  ethics,  29. 

Catholic  religion,  the  true,  10. 

Catholicity  of  the  Religion  of  Sci- 
ence, iv,  93. 

Ceremonies,  according  to  Religion  of 
Science,  11. 

Changes  brought  about  by  knowl- 
edge, 93. 


Christ,  a  living  presence  to-day,  84; 
an  ideal  figure,  tj;  cited,  80,  85; 
distinguished  from  Jesus,  77;  his 
spirit,  78;  in  invisible  church,  v; 
his  teaching  on  Sabbath  question, 
81;  82;  not  an  enemy  of  reason,  84; 
the  key-note  of  historical  evolution, 
79 ;  the  spirit  of  evolution,  80. 

Christ-ideal,  a  tendency,  79;  its  im- 
portance, 78. 

Christian  departure  from  Christ- 
ideal,  79;  ethics,  29,  79;  representa- 
tion of  continuance  of  soul-life,  48. 

Christianity,  called  cosmic  religion 
by  Augustine,  95,  96;  injured  by 
Sabbatarians,  83;  its  ideal,  73;  not 
free  from  idolatry,  70;  the  best  of 
religions,  70. 

Christians  contrasted  with  Christ, 
80,  90. 

Church,  the  invisible,  73. 

Civilisation,  its  moral  effect,  38;  per- 
vaded by  the  spirit  of  Christ,  79. 

Comfort  in  affliction,  3. 

Confucius,  in  invisible  church,  v. 

Convictions,  result  of  experience,  47. 

Corvinus,  103. 

Cosmic  religion  identified  by  Augus- 
tine with  Christianity,  95,  96. 

Creation  in  image  of  God,  51. 

Creed  contrasted  with  faith,  9;  its 
definition,  8. 

Day  of  rest  desirable,  84. 

Deism,  its  definition,  23. 

Demiurge,  116. 

Disposition,  inherited,  47. 

Divinity,  of  man,  51 ;  in  the  universe. 


INDEX. 


23 ;  of  nature,  the  standpoint  of  re- 
ligion, 100. 

Doctrines  of  Religion  of  Science,  10, 
II. 

Dogma,  its  definition,  8;  rejected  by 
Religion  of  Science,  10. 

Dogmatic  religions,  prophesies  of  re- 
ligion of  truth,  65;  under  the  spell 
of  paganism,  70. 

Dogmatism,  its  evils,  95. 

Duty  arises  from  every  truth,  32; 
ethics  of,  27;  implied  in  the  con- 
ception of  soul,  56. 

Ecclesiasticism  not  Christ's  religion, 
90. 

Ego,  an  illusion,  99;  its  contents 
changeable,  40;  its  definition,  39. 

Ego-soul  not  the  real  soul,  41, 98 ;  ob- 
jection to  its  abandonment,  55. 

Eleusinian  mysteries,  their  represen- 
tation of  immortality,  48. 

Emotional  life  should  be  centred  in 
soul,  54. 

Enjoyment  not  the  end  of  existence, 
94. 

Entheism,  its  acceptance  by  Religion 
of  Science,  24;  its  definition,  23. 

Epitaph  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  49. 

Established  religions,  their  form 
mythological,  71. 

Eternity  in  laws  of  nature,  19. 

Ethics,  a  branch  of  science,  13;  es- 
sentially uniform  throughout  uni- 
verse, 51;  religious  and  irreligious, 
27. 

Everlastingness  in  laws  of  nature,  19 ; 
its  ultimate  authority,  21. 

Evils  of  life,  how  to  combat  them,  14. 

Evolution,  cosmic,  24,  56;  historical, 
Cnrist  its  key-note,  79;  human,  29, 
48,  50;  of  religious  and  spiritual 
entities,  67,  72. 

Faith  contrasted  with  creed,  9. 
Feeling,  necessity  of  its  education, 53. 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  his  epitaphs,  49. 
Freethinker,  103. 

Galatians,  Epistle  to,  cited,  83. 
Gesetzvt&ssigkeit  ,111. 


Goal  of  religious  development,  69,  72 

God,  III. 

God,  as  viewed  by  science,  21,  22;  of 
the  Religion  of  Science,  106,  114- 
117;  immutability  of  his  will,  85; 
his  incarnation,  51;  in  what  sense 
one,  23;  not  a  person,  but  super- 
personal,  23,  99;  of  paganism,  70; 
the  eternity  of  nature, 24;  the  source 
and  destiny  of  the  soul,  55, 99 ;  vari- 
ous views  of,  22,  97;  a  reality,  112. 

Gods,  their  true  significance,  70. 

Gospels,  their  historical  character,  a 
purely  scientific  problem,  ■]■] ;  the 
miracles  in,  78. 

Guidance  in  vicissitudes  of  life,  3. 


Habits,  how  acquired,  35,  47. 
I    Happiness,  in   union   with   God,  99, 
its  purport  and  value,  28,  31 ;  only 
t        possible  through  religion,  94. 

Harmony  of  natural  laws,  20. 

Heaven    and    hell,    conditions,    not 
places,  99. 

Hedonism,  27,  29. 

Holtzmann,  cited,  77. 

Hume,  David,  58. 

Hypocrisy  in  prayer,  8g. 


Ideal  of  religious  development,  72, 73. 

Ideals  embodied  in  legends,  78. 

Ideas,  definition  of,  36 ;  implanted  by 
education,  47;  their  relation  to  the 
ego,  39,  48,  50, 

Idolatry,  in  the  churches,  iv  ;  its  def- 
inition, 70. 

Image  of  God,  51. 

Immortality,  a  moral  question,  53,57; 
a  fact,  48,  58;  its  nature,  47,  56;  its 
various  representations,  48  ;  neces- 
sary to  evolution,  48. 

Immutability  of  natural  laws,  19. 

Impulses,  definition,  35,  36. 

Incantation,  true  prayer  not  an,  89. 

Incarnation  of  God,  51. 

Indifference,  religious,  9. 

Injunctions  and  the  moral  law,  log. 

Inquiry  a  religious  duty,  10. 

Invisible  church,  its  nature,  v  ;  its 
significance,  73. 


INDEX. 


123 


Jesus,  cited,  4,  81  ;  his  historic  char- 
acter, •]■]. 

Kant,  cited,  84,  88. 
Knowledge,    cause    of    wonderful 
changes,  88,  89. 

Law  of  morality,  109. 

Laws  of  nature,  19,  20,  21,  50,  87,  iii. 

Legends  a  revelation  of  ideals,  78. 

Lewins,  57. 

Liberty,  advocated  by  St.  Paul,  81  ; 
Christians  its  enemies,  80. 

Liebig  on  the  alchem.ists,  66. 

Lord's  prayer,  no  prayer  in  the  com- 
mon sense,  89  ;  quoted,  85. 

Luther,  Martin,  cited,  iv. 

Man,  his  creation  in  the  image  of 
God,  51. 

Mark,  cited,  80;  the  oldest  of  the 
Gospels,  ^T. 

Materialism,  112. 

Meaning  in  feelings,  37. 

Medulla  Animse,  of  Tauler,  cited,  97. 

Metaphysicism,  59. 

Method  of  finding  a  religion,  4. 

Mind,  its  origin,  37. 

Miracles,  indicate  the  power  of  the 
Christ-ideal,  78  ;  not  besought  by 
Christ,  85. 

Monotheism,  22. 

Moral,  law  of  nature,  20;  life  a  con- 
dition of  revelation,  100;  standards 
of  the  Religion  of  Science,  12,  57. 

Morality  the  expression  of  charac- 
ter, 57. 

Moses,  in  invisible  church,  v. 

Motives  and  ideas  are  the  soul,  50. 

Mystery,  dispelled  by  science,  42;  its 
function,  14;  of  being,  to  whom  re- 
vealed, 100. 

Mythological  religions,  their  origin, 
66. 

Mythology,  in  religion,  72;  in  science, 
65,  68;  its  nature  and  functions,  65, 
78,  97,  99  ;  now  untenable,  71 ;  when 
injurious,  66. 

Natural  revelation  the  foundation  of 

religion  and  science,  71. 
Nature,  hostile  to  egotism,  54;   in- 


creased knowledge  of,  87  ;  its  inex- 
orable law,  21,  87. 

Necessity,  109. 

New  birth,  56. 

Nominalism,  iio-iii. 

Object  of  life,  3,  42. 

Open  Court  Publishing  Company,  its 

work,  iii. 
Open  questions  in  science,  13. 
Orthodoxy,  the  true,  10,  105. 


Paganism,  its  definition,  69;  its  evil, 
70 ;  its  consistency  with  true  Chris- 
tianity, 83;  its  prevalence,  iii,  77; 
its  view  of  Sunday,  82. 

Pantheism,  22,  23. 

Parables,  their  usefulness,  70. 

Paul,  St.,  cited,  83. 

Personal  relation  to  God  possible 
and  imperative,  93. 

Personality,  its  constituent  elements, 
47  ;  its  contents  changeable,  40. 

Pharisees,  name-Christians  their  suc- 
cessors, 90. 

Planets,  their  inhabitants,  51. 

Pleasure,  ethics  of,  27. 

Poet,  functions  of,  70. 

Polytheism,  22. 

Prayer,  abolished  by  Christ,  85  ;  in 
the  Religion  of  Science,  71,  86;  its 
pagan  significance,  70;  not  suppli- 
cation, 88  ;  not  to  be  discarded,  86, 
87  ;  should  be  an  act  of  self-discip- 
line, 88;  that  of  Christ  and  the 
Christian  contrasted,  88,  90. 

Preachers,  their  teaching  unreliable, 
81. 

Precepts  of  Religion  of  Science,  32. 

Priests,  basis  of  their  authority,  12; 
their  teaching  inconsistent  and  un- 
reliable, 81. 

Principles  of  Religion  of  Science,  8. 

Progress,  Christians  its  enemies,  80; 
religious  and  scientific,  v,  68,  72. 

Prophets,  basis  of  their  authority,  12. 

Prototype  of  soul,  51. 
Purpose  of  life,  3. 

Questions,  of  science  13. 


124 


INDEX. 


Race-experience,  io6. 

Reactions  of  impulse,  36. 

Reason,  its  uniformity  throughout  the 
universe,  51;  not  opposed  by  Christ, 
84. 

Redeemer,  the  only,  9. 

Religion,  106  ;  its  basis,  8  ;  its  begin- 
ning, G9;  its  definition,  3,  7,  69;  its 
demands,  100;  its  development,  v, 
67,  68,  72  ;  its  unity,  v;  not  due  to  su- 
pernatural revelation,  v,  71 ;  not  in 
conflict  with  science,  71 ;  of  Christ 
not  ecclesiasticism,  90;  purified  by 
science,  42;  secret  of  its  benefits, 
100;  the  Christianity  of  Christ,  90; 
to  some  a  mystery,  93. 

Religion  of  Science,  church-religions 
its  temporary  substitutes,  100;  com- 
pared with  others,  95  ;  its  charac- 
ter, iii-vi ;  on  God,  114,  117. 

Religions,  not  to  be  abolished  but 
purified,  iii  ;  viewed  by  the  Reli- 
gion of  Science,  65. 

Religious  truth,  52,  71. 

Resignation,  of  idea  of  self-owner- 
ship, 54 ;  the  true  spirit  of  prayer, 
90. 

Resurrection,  belief  of  Christians  in 
its  mythic  form,  82;  of  the  body, 
its  significance,  48. 

Revelation,  a  synonym  for  science, 
iv ;  in  the  book  of  nature,  iii,  T]  \ 
the  true,  in  experience,  71,  108. 

Revelations,  special,  unknown  to  Re- 
ligion of  Science,  71. 

Revision  of  doctrines,  10. 

Ritual,  according  to  Religion  of  Sci- 
ence, II ;  in  Christianity,  80. 

Romans,  epistle  to,  cited,  83. 

Sabbatarians  make  Christianity  a 
nuisance,  83. 

Sabbath,  its  abolition  by  first  Chris- 
tians, 82;  its  misunderstanding  a 
sign  of  paganism,  83 ;  question, 
opinion  of  Jesus  on,  81. 

Sacraments,  11. 

Sansara  and  "nature,"  96. 

Science,  a  synonym  for  revelation, 
iv ;  as  a  revelation  of  God,  108  ;  its 
authority,  13  ;  its  definition,  7,  13  ; 


its  influence  on  religious  life,  iv; 
its  methods,  4  ;  its  progress,  68;  its 
verdicts  to  be  accepted,  12 ;  its  view 
of  God,  21  ;  not  in  conflict  with  re- 
ligion, 71  ;  Religion  of,  4,  7. 

Scientific  conclusions,  why  not  ac- 
cepted, 52. 

Scientists  sometimes  their  own  Pope, 
13 ;  their  authority,  12,  13 ;  their 
place  in  the  Religion  of  Science, 
12. 

Scribes  and  Pharisees,  name-Chris- 
tians their  successors,  90. 

Scriptures,  their  function,  81. 

Sectarianism  disappearing,  iv. 

Self,  an  incarnation  of  nature's  di- 
vinity, 94  ;  how  constituted,  39,  50, 
55- 

Sensations  are  signs,  37. 

Sermon  on  the  Mount,  cited,  85. 

Settled  questions  in  science,  13. 

Similes,  their  usefulness,  70. 

Sociology,  a  branch  of  science,  13. 

Soul,  an  idiosyncrasy  of  ancestors, 
48;  from,  in,  and  for  God,  55;  its 
elements  and  sources,  47,  50;  its 
immortality,  47,  56;  its  nature,  35, 
41  ;  its  prototype,  51  ;  its  unity,  38; 
its  value,  43;  not  our  own,  54;  not 
the  ego,  41  ;  of  a  book,  50. 

Sources  of  religious  truth,  10,  71. 

Spirit  of  religion  always  the  same,  95. 

Spiritual  nature  of  the  true  self,  48. 

Sunday,  its  true  and  original  charac- 
ter, 82  ;  not  the  Sabbath  of  the 
Pharisees,  83;  pagan  view  of,  82; 
question  at  the  World's  Fair,  82. 

Supernatural  revelation  not  the  foun- 
dation of  religion,  v,  71. 

Supplication  not  true  prayer,  88. 

Support  in  tribulations,  3. 

Symbols,  their  true  nature,  11. 

Tauler,  Johannes,  cited,  96-99. 
Telepathy  in  supposed  operation  of 

prayer,  88. 
Temptation,  its  benefits,  14. 
Theism,  22. 
Theories,  worked  out  by  reflection, 

47- 
Thought,  definition,  37,  .17. 


INDEX. 


125 


Toleration,  9. 

Traditional  religions  harbingers  of 
the  true,  65. 

Tribulation,  support  in,  9. 

Truth,  a  picture  of  God,  52;  destruc- 
tive in  appearance  only,  42;  God's 
revelation,  81;  its  definition,  14,  19; 
its  relation  to  duty,  31 ;  name-Chris- 
tians its  enemies,  80;  not  yet  com- 
plete, 10;  religious  and  scientific,  8. 

Unalterability  of  truth,  14. 

Union  with  God,  Tauler's  teaching 

concerning  it,  97-99- 
Unity  of  the  soul,  38,  39. 


Vain  repetitions  used  by  Christians 
in  prayer,  86. 

Will,  its  definition,  36;  of  God  the 
true  object  of  prayer  and  aspira- 
tion, 86,  94. 

Work,  the  object  of  life,  94. 

World-picture  in  human  soul,  50. 

World's  Fair  at  Chicago,  its  Sunday 
opening,  81,  82. 

Worship  prescribed  by  Religion  of 
Science,  70. 

Zarathustra,  in  invisible  church,  v. 


The  Religion  of  Science  Library, 


A  collection  of  bi-monthly  publications,  most  of  which  are  re- 
prints of  books  published  by  The  Open  Court  Publishing  Company. 
Yearly,  $1.50.  Separate  copies  according  to  prices  quoted.  The 
books  are  printed  upon  good  paper,  from  large  type. 

The  Religion  of  Science  Library,  by  its  extraordinarily  reason- 
able price,  will  bring  a  large  number  of  valuable  books  within  the 
reach  of  all  readers. 


The  following  have  already  appeared  in  the  series 


No    I 
2 


13 


The  Religion  of  Science.     By  Paul  Carus      25c. 

Three  Introductory  Lectures  on  the  Science  c/  Thought. 
By  F.  Max  Muller.     25c. 

Three  Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Language.  By  F.  Max 
MtJLLER.      25c. 

The  Diseases  of  Personality.     By  Th.  Ribot.      25c. 

The  Psychology  of  Attention.     By  Th.  Ribot.     25c. 

The  Psychic  Ufe  of  Micro-Organisins.  By  Alfred  Binet. 
25c. 

The  Nature  of  the  State.     By  Paul  Carus.      15c. 

On  Double  Consciousness.     By  Alfred  Binet.      15c. 

Fundatnental  Problems.     By  Paul  Carus.     50c. 

The  Diseases  of  the  Will.     By  Th.  Ribot.     25c. 

The  Origin  of  Language.     By  Ludwig  Noire.      15c. 

The  Free  Trade  Struggle  in  England.  By  M.  M.  Trum- 
bull.    25c. 

Wheelbarroiv  on  the  Labor  Question.  By  M.  M.  Trum- 
bull.     35c. 

The  Gospel  of  Buddha.     By  Paul  Carus.     35c. 

The  Primer  of  Philosophy.     By  Paul  Carus.     25c. 


The  following  are  in  preparation  : 

The  Philosophy  of  Ancient  India.     By  Prof.  Richard  Garbe. 

Buddhism  and  Christianity.     By  Paul  Carus. 

The  Lost  Manuscript.     A  Novel.     By  Gustav  Freytag. 

The  Stzidy  of  Sanskrit.     By  Prof.  H.  Oldenberg. 

Old  Testament  History.     By  Prof.  C  H.  Cornill. 

Metnory  as  a  General  Function  of  Organised  Matter,  and  The  Spe- 
cific Energies  of  the  Nervous  System,  etc.  By  Prof.  Ewald 
Hering. 


THE  OPEN   COURT  PUBLISHING  CO., 

324  Dearborn  Street,  Chicago,  III. 


CATALOGUE  OF  PUBLICATIONS 

OF  THE 

OPEN  COURT  PUBLISHING  CO. 


MULLER.  F.   MAX. 

THREE    INTRODUCTORY    LECTURES    ON    THE  'SCIENCE    OF 
THOUGHT. 
With  a  correspondence  on  "Thought  Without  Words,"  between  F. 
Max  Miiller  and  Francis  Gallon,  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  George  J.  Ro- 
manes and  others.     128  pages.     Cloth,  75  cents.     Paper,  25  cents. 

THREE  LECTURES  ON  THE  SCIENCE  OF  LANGUAGE. 

The  Oxford  University  Extension  Lectures,  with  a  Supplement,  "  My 
Predecessors,"  an  essay  on  the  genesis  of  "  The  Science  of  Thought.' 
112  pages.     Second  Edition.     Cloth,  75  cents.     Paper,  25  cents. 

ROMANES.   GEORGE  JOHN. 

DARWIN  AND  AFTER  DARWIN. 

An  Exposition  of  the  Darwinian  Theory  and  a  Discussion  of  Post- 
Darwinian  Questions. 

1.  The  Darwinian  Theory. 

460  pages.     125  illustrations.     Cloth,  $2.00. 

2.  Post-Darwinian  Questions. 

Edited  by  Prof.  C,  Lloyd  Morgan.    Pages,  338.    Cloth,  $1.50.    Both 
volumes,  on  one  order,  for  $3.00  net. 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  WEISMANNISM. 
236  pages.     Cloth,  $1.00. 

THOUGHTS  ON  RELIGION. 

Edited  by  Charles  Gore,  M.  A.,  Canon  of  Westminster.  Second  Edi- 
tion.    Pages,  184.     Cloth,  gilt  top,  $1.25. 

COPE,  E.  D. 

THE  PRIMARY  FACTORS  OF  ORGANIC  EVOLUTION. 
121  cuts.     Circa  550  pages.     Cloth,  $2.00. 

RIBOT,  TH. 

THE  PSYCHOLOGY  pF  ATTENTION. 

Authorised  translation,  121  pages.    Cloth,  75  cents.    Paper,  25  cents. 

THE  DISEASES  OF  PERSONALITY. 

Authorised  translation,  157  pages.    Cloth,  75  cents.    Paper,  25  cents. 

THE  DISEASES  OF  THE  WILL. 

Authorised  translation,  134  pages.    Cloth,  75  cents.    Paper,  25  cents, 
N,  B.     Full  set,  cloth,  net,  ^1.75. 

MACH,   ERNST. 

THE  SCIENCE  OF  MECHANICS. 

A  Critical  and  Historical  Exposition  of  its  Principles.  Translated 
from  the  second  German  edition  by  Thomas  J.  McCormack,  with  250 
cuts  and  illustrations,  marginal  analysis,  and  a  complete  index.  518 
pages.     Half  morocco,  gilt  top.     Price,  82.50. 

POPULAR  SCIENTIFIC  LECTURES. 

313  pages.     Cloth,  gilt  top.     Net,  $1.00. 
THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  SENSATIONS. 
Un  preparation.) 

FREYTAG.   GUSTAV. 

THE  LOST  MANUSCRIPT. 

A  Novel.  Authorised  translation  from  the  Sixteenth  German  Edition 
Two  volumes.  953  pages.  Extra  cloth,  gilt  top,  $4.00;  the  same  in 
one  volume,  cloth,  $1  00;  paper,  75  cents. 


CORNILL.  CARL  HEINRICH. 

THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL. 

Popular  Sketches  from  Old  Testament  History.  Frontispiece,  Michael 
Angelo's  Moses.     Pages,  210.     Cloth,  $1.00. 

THE  RISE  OF  THE  PEOPLE  OF  ISRAEL. 
See  Epitomes  of  Three  Sciences,  below. 

BINET,  ALFRED. 

THE  PSYCHIC  LIFE  OF  MICRO-ORGANISMS. 

Authorised  translation.     135  pages.     Cloth,  75  cents ;  Paper,  25  cents. 

ON  DOUBLE  CONSCIOUSNESS. 

New  Studies  in  Experimental  Psychology.    93  pages.    Paper,  15  cents 

TRUMBULL,   M.   M. 

THE  FREE  TRADE  STRUGGLE  IN  ENGLAND. 

Second  Edition,  revised  and  enlarged.     296  pages.     Cloth,  75  cents; 
paper,  25  cents. 

WHEELBARROW :  Articles  and  Discussions  on  the  Labor  Question 
With  portrait  of  the  author.    303  pages.    Cloth,  $1.00  ;  paper,  35  cents. 

EARL  GREY  ON  RECIPROCITY  AND  CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM. 
With  Comments  by  Gen.  M.  M.  Trumbull.     Price,  10  cents. 

CARUS,  PAUL. 

THE  ETHICAL  PROBLEM. 

90  pages.     Cloth,  50  cents  ;  Paper,  30  cents. 

FUNDAMENTAL  PROBLEMS. 

The  Method  of  Philosophy  as  a  Systematic  Arrangement  of  Knowl- 
edge.    Second  edition,  enlarged  and  revised.    372  pages.    Cloth,  $1.50. 

HOMILIES  OF  SCIENCE. 

310  pages.     Cloth,  Gilt  Top,  $1.50. 

THE  IDEA  OF  GOD. 

32  pages.     Paper,  15  cents. 

THE  SOUL  OF  MAN. 

An  Investigation  of  the  Facts  of  Physiological  and  Experimental  Psy- 
chology.    With  152  cuts  and  diagrams.    458  pages.    Cloth,  $3.00. 

TRUTH  IN  FICTION.     Twelve  Tales  with  a  Moral. 

Printed  on  fine  laid  paper,  white  and  gold  binding,  gilt  edges,   12S 
pages.     Price,  $1.00. 

THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE. 
Extra  edition.     Price,  50  cents. 

PRIMER  OF  PHILOSOPHY. 

A  popular  exposition  of  the  fundamental  notions  of  philosophy.     240 
pages.     Cloth,  $1.00. 

THE  GOSPEL  OF  BUDDHA.     According  to  Old  Records. 

Third  Revised  Edition.     275  pages.     Cloth,  Gilt  Top,  Si. 00.     Paper 
35  cents. 

GARBE,  RICHARD. 

THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  BRAHMAN.     A  Tale  of  Hindu  Like. 
Laid  paper.  Veg.  parch,  binding.    Gilt  top.    96  pages.  Price,  75  cents 

EPITOMES  OF  THREE  SCIENCES. 

1.  COMPARATIVE  PHILOLOGY;  The  Study  of  Sanskrit.  By  Prof.  H . 

Oldenberg. 

2.  EXPERIMENTAL  PSYCHOLOGY.     By  Prof.  Joseph  yasirow. 

3    OLD    TESTAMENT    HISTORY;    or,  The   Rise  of  the   People  of 
Israel.     By  Prof.  C.  H.  Cor^till. 
140  pages.     Cloth,  75  cents. 


THE  OPEN   COURT 

A  WEEKLY  MAGAZINE 

DEVOTED  TO  THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE 


THE  OPEN  COURT  does  not  understand  by  religion  any  creed  or  dog- 
matic belief,  but  man' s  world-conception  in  so  far  as  it  regulates  his  conduct. 

The  old  dogmatic  conception  of  religion  is  based  upon  the  science  of  past 
ages;  to  base  religion  upon  the  maturest  and  truest  thought  of  the  present 
time  is  the  object  of  The  Open  Cou7-t.  Thus,  the  religion  of  The  Open  Court  is 
the  Religion  of  Science,  that  is,  the  religion  of  verified  and  verifiable  truth. 

Although  opposed  to  irrational  orthodoxy  and  narrow  bigotry.  The  Open 
Court  does  not  attack  the  properly  religious  element  of  the  various  religions. 
It  criticises  their  errors  unflinchingly  but  without  animosity,  and  endeavors 
to  preserve  of  them  all  that  is  true  and  good. 

The  current  numbers  of  The  Open  Court  contain  valuable  original  articles 
from  the  pens  of  distinguished  thinkers.  Accurate  and  authorised  transla- 
tions are  made  in  Philosophy,  Science,  and  Criticism  from  the  periodical 
literature  of  Continental  Europe,  and  reviews  of  noteworthy  recent  investiga- 
tions are  presented. 

Terms:  One  dollar  a  year  throughout  the  Postal  Union.  Single  Copies 
5  cents. 


THE  MONIST 

A  OtJARTERLV   MAGAZINE   OF 

PHILOSOPHY  AND  SCIENCE. 


THE  MOiV/ST  discusses  the  fundamental  problems  of  Philosophy  in  their 
practical  relations  to  the  religious,  ethical,  and  sociological  questions  of  the 
day.     The  follov.'ing  have  contributed  to  its  columns  : 

Prof.  Joseph  Le  Conte,  Prof.  G.  J.  Romanes,  Prof.  C.  Lombroso, 
Dr.  W.  T.  Harris,              Prof.  C.  Lloyd  Morgan,  Prof.  E.  Haeckel, 

M.  D.  Conway,  James  Sully,  Prof.  H.  Hoffding, 

Charles  S.  Peirce,  B.  Bosanquet,  Dr.  F.  Oswald, 

Prof.  F.  Max  Muller,      Dr.  A.  Binet,  Prof.  J.  Delbceuf, 

Prof.  E.  D.  Cope,  Prof.  Ernst  Mach,  Prof.  F.  Jodl, 

Carus  Sterne,  Rabbi  Emil  Hirsch,  Prof.  H.  M.  Stanley, 

Mrs.  C.  Ladd  Franklin,  Lester  F.  Ward.  G.  Ferrero, 

Prof.  Max  Verworn,         Prof.  H.  Schubert,  J.  Venn, 

Prof.  Felix  Klein,  Dr.  Edm.  Montgomery,  Prof.  H.  von  Holst. 

Per  Copy,  50 cents;  Yearly,  $2.00.    In  England  and  all  countries  in  U.P.U 
per  Copy,  2s  6d  ;  Yearly,  gs  6d. 

CHICAGO: 

THE  OPEN   COURT  PUBLISHING  CO., 

Monon  Building,  324  Dearborn  Street. 
London:  WATTS  &  CO.,  17  Johnson's  Court,  Fleet  St.,  E.  C. 


